Well the day had to come sooner or later.
It was enjoyable discussing with you the state of journalism practice and theory in our world today. All that is left to ask is: 'what have we gotten from this' ?
I think I've learnt that there is a plethora of theories out there that we have looked at, that try to shape an understanding of journalism - and many of these are no longer relevent to the practice of journalism today. I've learnt that journalism is a quickly changing and evolving practice, and its use, consumption and relevence is much different in today's world than years before. The changing nature of journalism may seem to be a given to anyone reading - but it has been an interesting and worthwhile activity to methodically go through and just think about what my role may be in the future (being the hopeful journo that I am).
Till next time.....
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Week 12
This week we will explore chapter 15 of the text book – “The media is the message”
This chapter discusses the idea that a journalistic process is now broken down into several steps that are “up for grabs” (Tapsall, 2001, p.251). The journalist’s role is now only one part of the journalistic process. There is now according to Tapsall a distinct separation of news content and news packaging and this results in more attention being given to the packaging rather than the quality of the content.
The theory of technological determinism is discussed – and this can be a positive or negative perspective. Within this field of thought there are several sub-theories about the social ramifications of technology:
Technological utopianism/dystopianism - there is an overall consent that technological change drives social change.
The technological imperitive – this theory looks at technology as inescapable and inevitable. The use of technology is more because we have to and we cope with it – rather than embracing the technology for benefits. There is no choice of technological use in this theory.
Technology as autonomous and neutral – technology is autonomous and is “blindly shaping society” (Tapsall, 2001, p.240). This theory says that because this technology now exists and there are now these possibilities – we use it to our advantage.
Technology in progress – technology and progress are equated. One brings about the other. People who don’t adopt technology are seen as standing in the way of technological change and revolutions.
Social determination of technology – technology and society are caused by multiple actions.
I believe that technology drives society (although obviously it is not the only cause) and society drives technology. They are interdependent for progress to occur.
Tapsall says that journalists that are the ‘jack of all trades and masters of none” will become less and specialist journalists will increase, playing their part in the news production process – which is intertwined with technology.
The chapter finishes with a statement that journalism will not be respected unless there is a real and passionate commitment at all levels of the news organisation to the delivery of news that is in the public’s interest.
References:
Tapsall S, 2001, ‘The media is the message’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.235 - 253.
This chapter discusses the idea that a journalistic process is now broken down into several steps that are “up for grabs” (Tapsall, 2001, p.251). The journalist’s role is now only one part of the journalistic process. There is now according to Tapsall a distinct separation of news content and news packaging and this results in more attention being given to the packaging rather than the quality of the content.
The theory of technological determinism is discussed – and this can be a positive or negative perspective. Within this field of thought there are several sub-theories about the social ramifications of technology:
Technological utopianism/dystopianism - there is an overall consent that technological change drives social change.
The technological imperitive – this theory looks at technology as inescapable and inevitable. The use of technology is more because we have to and we cope with it – rather than embracing the technology for benefits. There is no choice of technological use in this theory.
Technology as autonomous and neutral – technology is autonomous and is “blindly shaping society” (Tapsall, 2001, p.240). This theory says that because this technology now exists and there are now these possibilities – we use it to our advantage.
Technology in progress – technology and progress are equated. One brings about the other. People who don’t adopt technology are seen as standing in the way of technological change and revolutions.
Social determination of technology – technology and society are caused by multiple actions.
I believe that technology drives society (although obviously it is not the only cause) and society drives technology. They are interdependent for progress to occur.
Tapsall says that journalists that are the ‘jack of all trades and masters of none” will become less and specialist journalists will increase, playing their part in the news production process – which is intertwined with technology.
The chapter finishes with a statement that journalism will not be respected unless there is a real and passionate commitment at all levels of the news organisation to the delivery of news that is in the public’s interest.
References:
Tapsall S, 2001, ‘The media is the message’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.235 - 253.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Week 11
Week 10 did not require any readings – because our class played the audio copies of interviews we had with various senior journalists.
The reading for week 11 is ch 14: ‘Journalism in the global village’ by Rhonda Breit. The chapter discusses the idea that journalism is increasingly being involved in the global village – global issues, global stories, global audiences.
New technologies are changing the way journalists get and report news. These technologies are not only affecting the way news is reported but also some local laws are becoming irrelevant in a world of mass information to mass audiences. The legal system is suffering under this media liberalisation and globalisation. “While freedom of speech may flourish in this environment, other rights such as personal privacy are suffering.” (Breit, p.213).
The global village has been enabled by increased developments in technologies. With this global audience – global corporations and TNCs have grown in power – the ten largest media corporations are: “Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Sony, TCI, Universal (Seagram), NBC (GE), and Polygram” (Breit, p.214). There are also other large corporations that specialise in targeting niche markets – such as the Packer’s Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL). “Concentration of media ownership into the hands of a few TNCs is threatening the integrity of journalism. At the same time it threatens the legal systems that regulate the media and balance basic human rights.”(Breit, p.217).
Another large factor that impacts journalistic practice today is commercialisation. “..commercial considerations are tainting the news agenda in the global media, as they have done in the national media..” (Breit, p.216).
With globalisation come the aforementioned pressures on journalists (commercialisation, competition, mass audiences, largely US ownership and ideologies etc) which will consciously or unconsciously effect their productions. In such an environment, “It is vital that journalists rethink their functions in society.” (Breit, p.219).
Breit suggests that globalisation poses two major threats; it threatens the two most powerful ‘watchdogs’ – the judiciary and journalism.
The Judiciary is threatened, because “when publishing material globally, the media must comply with the publication laws of each jurisdiction in which they publish. For the journalist who writes the stories, this is an onerous task.” (Breit, p.222). The expectation that global media will abide by local laws set out in the judiciary system is asking a lot. The power of TNCs and the technologies allowing global reach of journalistic works are the two factors that Breit says are “undermining domestic laws” (p.222).
Journalism is threatened because of all of the pressures that globalisation puts on a journalist to shape their work a differently than if they were primarily serving their role as the fourth estate.
Breit suggests the only way to combat the negative effects that globalisation has on journalistic productions and on the judiciary system managing journalistic productions, is to have global cooperation (p.225). “Journalists must consent to a transparent system of accountability, supplemented by internationalised local laws that acknowledge the changing role of the global journalist.” (p.229).
I don’t really think it will be possible to come up with a global set of rules or laws for journalistic accountability. I think it would be too difficult to assimilate different countries’ views on censorship and defamation etc. These sorts of rules incorporate value systems that are often unique to one country. This global village that we live in poses many issues for journalists to face – some we can attempt to battle alone – others are best left to the diplomats.
References:
Briet R, 2001, ‘Journalism in the global village’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 213 – 231.
The reading for week 11 is ch 14: ‘Journalism in the global village’ by Rhonda Breit. The chapter discusses the idea that journalism is increasingly being involved in the global village – global issues, global stories, global audiences.
New technologies are changing the way journalists get and report news. These technologies are not only affecting the way news is reported but also some local laws are becoming irrelevant in a world of mass information to mass audiences. The legal system is suffering under this media liberalisation and globalisation. “While freedom of speech may flourish in this environment, other rights such as personal privacy are suffering.” (Breit, p.213).
The global village has been enabled by increased developments in technologies. With this global audience – global corporations and TNCs have grown in power – the ten largest media corporations are: “Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Sony, TCI, Universal (Seagram), NBC (GE), and Polygram” (Breit, p.214). There are also other large corporations that specialise in targeting niche markets – such as the Packer’s Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL). “Concentration of media ownership into the hands of a few TNCs is threatening the integrity of journalism. At the same time it threatens the legal systems that regulate the media and balance basic human rights.”(Breit, p.217).
Another large factor that impacts journalistic practice today is commercialisation. “..commercial considerations are tainting the news agenda in the global media, as they have done in the national media..” (Breit, p.216).
With globalisation come the aforementioned pressures on journalists (commercialisation, competition, mass audiences, largely US ownership and ideologies etc) which will consciously or unconsciously effect their productions. In such an environment, “It is vital that journalists rethink their functions in society.” (Breit, p.219).
Breit suggests that globalisation poses two major threats; it threatens the two most powerful ‘watchdogs’ – the judiciary and journalism.
The Judiciary is threatened, because “when publishing material globally, the media must comply with the publication laws of each jurisdiction in which they publish. For the journalist who writes the stories, this is an onerous task.” (Breit, p.222). The expectation that global media will abide by local laws set out in the judiciary system is asking a lot. The power of TNCs and the technologies allowing global reach of journalistic works are the two factors that Breit says are “undermining domestic laws” (p.222).
Journalism is threatened because of all of the pressures that globalisation puts on a journalist to shape their work a differently than if they were primarily serving their role as the fourth estate.
Breit suggests the only way to combat the negative effects that globalisation has on journalistic productions and on the judiciary system managing journalistic productions, is to have global cooperation (p.225). “Journalists must consent to a transparent system of accountability, supplemented by internationalised local laws that acknowledge the changing role of the global journalist.” (p.229).
I don’t really think it will be possible to come up with a global set of rules or laws for journalistic accountability. I think it would be too difficult to assimilate different countries’ views on censorship and defamation etc. These sorts of rules incorporate value systems that are often unique to one country. This global village that we live in poses many issues for journalists to face – some we can attempt to battle alone – others are best left to the diplomats.
References:
Briet R, 2001, ‘Journalism in the global village’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 213 – 231.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Week 9:
Literary Journalism:
We looked at literary journalism again this week with Joe’s presentation. This was one intense and emotional presentation! Joe decided to compare two pieces of work he wrote - a piece of news journalism to a piece of literary journalism - in order to highlight the differences between the two and the advantages and disadvantages of them. The issue covered was the Bali bombings. The piece of literary journalism that Joe wrote was really touching and brought the class to silence. It did highlight the emotional impact that literary journalism can have and thus how it can be more powerful than hearing facts and figures – like the hundreds that died on that day. Literary journalism can affect a reader/viewer far more than hearing a factual report – and this may be why we love to read literary journalism. This idea of being more affected by a piece of literary journalism about one death than by hearing the statistics of hundreds that died in the terrorist attack – was linked to people being desensitised by hearing about such tragedies every day on the news – but not always seeing the emotional impacts that this tragedies have on real people’s lives.
There are 6 essential elements to literary journalism –
Hard evidence (quotes, data etc)
Research (often for a long time)
Novelistic techniques
The writer has to have a voice (they are a part of the story)
There has to be a literary prose style (structure and words)
There has to be an underlying meaning or an argument to the piece
But – as was discussed last week – literary journalism seems like an undesirable field to get into. It can take a long time to research and it doesn’t pay well – you have to have a real passion for the story you’re writing to continue with it.
Chapter 12 - Public Interest v Privacy:
This issue is very interesting to me and it also seems that the answer to this question is different for every person and is dependent on personal morals and ethics.
In class we tried to classify what was public and what was private –
Public:
- Unrestricted public areas
- In public when a person in a position of power when on duty
- Social events
- Performances
Private:
- Home
- Car
- Workplace
- Family
- Grief/illness
- Church
- Hospital
Journalists work to reveal rather than conceal and this creates conflict with a person’s right to privacy. There are many pressures that journalists face that would drive them to invade a person’s privacy – from their employer and peers.
Normally the individual’s right to privacy will be outlined by a journalist’s union or association and their set of principles – but it can be difficult to incorporate such high standards into real journalistic practices (see again the conflict between theory and practice). “But while journalistic adherence to these principles is encouraging, it would be unrealistic to expect individual journalists to be able to carry the prime responsibility for withstanding the forces discussed earlier [from employers and peers]”. (Richards, p.195)
References:
Richards I, 2001, ‘Public Interests, Private Lives’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
We looked at literary journalism again this week with Joe’s presentation. This was one intense and emotional presentation! Joe decided to compare two pieces of work he wrote - a piece of news journalism to a piece of literary journalism - in order to highlight the differences between the two and the advantages and disadvantages of them. The issue covered was the Bali bombings. The piece of literary journalism that Joe wrote was really touching and brought the class to silence. It did highlight the emotional impact that literary journalism can have and thus how it can be more powerful than hearing facts and figures – like the hundreds that died on that day. Literary journalism can affect a reader/viewer far more than hearing a factual report – and this may be why we love to read literary journalism. This idea of being more affected by a piece of literary journalism about one death than by hearing the statistics of hundreds that died in the terrorist attack – was linked to people being desensitised by hearing about such tragedies every day on the news – but not always seeing the emotional impacts that this tragedies have on real people’s lives.
There are 6 essential elements to literary journalism –
Hard evidence (quotes, data etc)
Research (often for a long time)
Novelistic techniques
The writer has to have a voice (they are a part of the story)
There has to be a literary prose style (structure and words)
There has to be an underlying meaning or an argument to the piece
But – as was discussed last week – literary journalism seems like an undesirable field to get into. It can take a long time to research and it doesn’t pay well – you have to have a real passion for the story you’re writing to continue with it.
Chapter 12 - Public Interest v Privacy:
This issue is very interesting to me and it also seems that the answer to this question is different for every person and is dependent on personal morals and ethics.
In class we tried to classify what was public and what was private –
Public:
- Unrestricted public areas
- In public when a person in a position of power when on duty
- Social events
- Performances
Private:
- Home
- Car
- Workplace
- Family
- Grief/illness
- Church
- Hospital
Journalists work to reveal rather than conceal and this creates conflict with a person’s right to privacy. There are many pressures that journalists face that would drive them to invade a person’s privacy – from their employer and peers.
Normally the individual’s right to privacy will be outlined by a journalist’s union or association and their set of principles – but it can be difficult to incorporate such high standards into real journalistic practices (see again the conflict between theory and practice). “But while journalistic adherence to these principles is encouraging, it would be unrealistic to expect individual journalists to be able to carry the prime responsibility for withstanding the forces discussed earlier [from employers and peers]”. (Richards, p.195)
References:
Richards I, 2001, ‘Public Interests, Private Lives’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Week 8
In class this week we again looked at the issues of representation in the media. Kate Carragher brought up some interesting issues in her presentation:
Representations in the media can be stereotypical and through this can perpetuate stereotypes within society – these stereotypes become so common that they eventually seem ‘natural’ and unmediated. This demonstrates the real power and responsibility that journalists have in the moulding of their words – they can (inadvertently or not) increase the marginalisation of minority groups or at least increase the stereotypes that exist in society.
Journalists have the powerful position of not only reporting on events – but shaping the readers’ or viewers’ perceptions of these events. Their words mould our understanding of issues and occurrences.
Photographic journalists share the same powers and responsibilities – the framing and composition of their photographs determine the viewers’ perspective on the subject.
Kate discussed the issue of identifying characteristics of a person that make them different from the majority – for example their ethnicity. Is ethnicity really an important issue to be reporting on? – unless it is the reason for the issue in the first place? If a person is Caucasian – their ethnicity is not identified in print media – but this is not the same for other races or ethnic groups – why is this??? It seems to be totally irrelevant to me- and only a tool for increasing racial and ethnic stereotypes.
Another interesting point was that it is often left to media bodies or journalists themselves to pick up on ill-representations in the media – eg – Mediawatch – is this really effective – should it be the responsibility of an independent body?
Most often, it is through complaints by certain groups in society (often the victims of misrepresentation) that bring such issues to light.
Kate mentioned also that people are becoming more media savvy and are able to read into the representations that are present in journalists’ works.
This is probably true to a degree – but I think that there is still a large amount of society that do not question everything that is represented to them in the media.
Literary Journalism:
· The main issue with this type of journalism that was identified in class was the potential for literary journalism to slip into narrative or for the facts to be lost with the literary techniques and structuring that this genre requires.
· An interesting technique that Christina mentioned was character-splitting – where, to avoid defamation – a journalist split one character from her ‘story’ into 6 different characters. I believe that this is completely losing the truth of the story. It may get the essence of the story across – but the facts are not there.
· This is something that I think is the real benefit of literary journalism. The essence of the story is better conveyed to the readers/viewers. However the essence of a story is a subjective understanding and therefore I question it being considered journalism. What do you think??
Representations in the media can be stereotypical and through this can perpetuate stereotypes within society – these stereotypes become so common that they eventually seem ‘natural’ and unmediated. This demonstrates the real power and responsibility that journalists have in the moulding of their words – they can (inadvertently or not) increase the marginalisation of minority groups or at least increase the stereotypes that exist in society.
Journalists have the powerful position of not only reporting on events – but shaping the readers’ or viewers’ perceptions of these events. Their words mould our understanding of issues and occurrences.
Photographic journalists share the same powers and responsibilities – the framing and composition of their photographs determine the viewers’ perspective on the subject.
Kate discussed the issue of identifying characteristics of a person that make them different from the majority – for example their ethnicity. Is ethnicity really an important issue to be reporting on? – unless it is the reason for the issue in the first place? If a person is Caucasian – their ethnicity is not identified in print media – but this is not the same for other races or ethnic groups – why is this??? It seems to be totally irrelevant to me- and only a tool for increasing racial and ethnic stereotypes.
Another interesting point was that it is often left to media bodies or journalists themselves to pick up on ill-representations in the media – eg – Mediawatch – is this really effective – should it be the responsibility of an independent body?
Most often, it is through complaints by certain groups in society (often the victims of misrepresentation) that bring such issues to light.
Kate mentioned also that people are becoming more media savvy and are able to read into the representations that are present in journalists’ works.
This is probably true to a degree – but I think that there is still a large amount of society that do not question everything that is represented to them in the media.
Literary Journalism:
· The main issue with this type of journalism that was identified in class was the potential for literary journalism to slip into narrative or for the facts to be lost with the literary techniques and structuring that this genre requires.
· An interesting technique that Christina mentioned was character-splitting – where, to avoid defamation – a journalist split one character from her ‘story’ into 6 different characters. I believe that this is completely losing the truth of the story. It may get the essence of the story across – but the facts are not there.
· This is something that I think is the real benefit of literary journalism. The essence of the story is better conveyed to the readers/viewers. However the essence of a story is a subjective understanding and therefore I question it being considered journalism. What do you think??
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Week 7
Truth and Representation:
Chapter 8 has a focus on reporting on indigenous affairs.
“Indigenous people…have been positioned from, and within, the dominant ideas and assumptions of Anglo-European culture.” (Meadows and Ewart, 2001, p.127): This quote frames the context of reporting of indigenous people in Australia.
Reporting on Indigenous Australians, is like reporting on any other minority group in society. Reporting on issues surrounding minority groups can be criticised for being stereotypical, too negative or too forgiving. Journalists can also be criticised for reporting too often on minority groups for negative reasons, or for not reporting often enough.
Besides the subjective reporting on indigenous communities and people by Australian reporters (as is the case with any other community or people) – there is a problem with a lack of indigenous Australian perspectives in Australian reporting.
Chapter 9 deals with ethical questions in relation to cultural differences and ‘the other’. This relates strongly to the previous chapter of indigenous affairs reporting – in that journalists reporting on minority groups are faced with a set of ethical questions relating to cultural differences and differences in general.
If reporting on these minority groups, or ‘the other’ is unethical – or provides a distorted image to the public – it can have important impacts on society at large:
- reiterates societies’ stereotypes and stigmas of communities
- journalistic representations of groups in society can impact socially, culturally, politically and economically
- “The work of journalists in both news and entertainment media representations can cultivate and legitimise ways of understanding people, places, issues, and events,” (Scott, 2001, p.131).
During class we discussed the idea that university educated journalists may be able to better handle the ethically complex situations that journalists face when representing groups in society. Christina (our tutor) pointed out that university education provides us with a different, maybe a more analytical way, of thinking about things. And whilst at university we do study the ethical situations that arise in journalistic practice. However I feel that I am no more ready to face difficult ethical situations than someone else – because the decisions in such situations are inevitably subjective and you can’t learn this. One can refer to a set of ethical standards and make the best judgement they can about a particular situation, based on these standards – but this does not require a university degree. Perhaps the only advantage university educated journalists have, is that they are prepared and expect to face these difficult situations – and are aware of different sources of ethical guides that they can use to make their own ethical decisions. But I would be surprised to find that university educated journalists are better at dealing with ethical dilemmas.
References:
Meadows M and Ewart J, 2001, ‘More than skin deep: Australia’s Indigenous Heritage’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
Scott P, 2001, ‘On the fringe: journalism, representation and cultural competence’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
Chapter 8 has a focus on reporting on indigenous affairs.
“Indigenous people…have been positioned from, and within, the dominant ideas and assumptions of Anglo-European culture.” (Meadows and Ewart, 2001, p.127): This quote frames the context of reporting of indigenous people in Australia.
Reporting on Indigenous Australians, is like reporting on any other minority group in society. Reporting on issues surrounding minority groups can be criticised for being stereotypical, too negative or too forgiving. Journalists can also be criticised for reporting too often on minority groups for negative reasons, or for not reporting often enough.
Besides the subjective reporting on indigenous communities and people by Australian reporters (as is the case with any other community or people) – there is a problem with a lack of indigenous Australian perspectives in Australian reporting.
Chapter 9 deals with ethical questions in relation to cultural differences and ‘the other’. This relates strongly to the previous chapter of indigenous affairs reporting – in that journalists reporting on minority groups are faced with a set of ethical questions relating to cultural differences and differences in general.
If reporting on these minority groups, or ‘the other’ is unethical – or provides a distorted image to the public – it can have important impacts on society at large:
- reiterates societies’ stereotypes and stigmas of communities
- journalistic representations of groups in society can impact socially, culturally, politically and economically
- “The work of journalists in both news and entertainment media representations can cultivate and legitimise ways of understanding people, places, issues, and events,” (Scott, 2001, p.131).
During class we discussed the idea that university educated journalists may be able to better handle the ethically complex situations that journalists face when representing groups in society. Christina (our tutor) pointed out that university education provides us with a different, maybe a more analytical way, of thinking about things. And whilst at university we do study the ethical situations that arise in journalistic practice. However I feel that I am no more ready to face difficult ethical situations than someone else – because the decisions in such situations are inevitably subjective and you can’t learn this. One can refer to a set of ethical standards and make the best judgement they can about a particular situation, based on these standards – but this does not require a university degree. Perhaps the only advantage university educated journalists have, is that they are prepared and expect to face these difficult situations – and are aware of different sources of ethical guides that they can use to make their own ethical decisions. But I would be surprised to find that university educated journalists are better at dealing with ethical dilemmas.
References:
Meadows M and Ewart J, 2001, ‘More than skin deep: Australia’s Indigenous Heritage’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
Scott P, 2001, ‘On the fringe: journalism, representation and cultural competence’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Week 6
Truth and Objectivity
Chapters 6 and 7:
There is no way that a journalist can be objective. A person’s world view is shaped by social groups, family, political groups, events in their lives, the country in which they live, the entire context of a person’s up-bringing and current life. Some of the biases that are articulated in journalistic publications can be both/either consciously or unconsciously put there.
Objectivity is an ideology to strive for.
Truth is subjective. Truth is different for every person because their perspective is subjectively shaped.
Language shapes our description of the truth – it is not an exact communication of our perceptions, “Language is an imprecise communication tool,” (Tickle, 2001, p. 89) and “language does not describe reality, it actually constructs it.” (Turner, 1993, cited in Tickle, 2001, p.90).
There are some obvious pressures that affect journalists in the level of objectivity of their work
- Pressures from their employer (consciously or unconsciously considered) to take an angle on a story or to only write certain stories depending on media partners, advertisers, sponsors, corporate links etc.
- Pressures from the commercial structure of journalism to create appealing stories for higher audience numbers or readers – infotainment, sensationalism, short stories, soft news etc.
- Pressures from their industry alliance or association to abide by their code of conduct or ethics (AJA, MEAA etc).
- Pressures from their own conscience to express a personal bias.
- Pressures from social, cultural, religious or political networks or associations to express a certain perspective on issues.
Due to these obvious and underlying pressures that affect one’s perception of the truth, different journalists can report quite different accounts of an event or issue. The images, the content and the framing of a story (through words and focus and layout) produce the audience’s understanding of the issue or event being reported.
The impossibility of objectivity in journalism leaves it to the audiences of journalistic productions to discern the truth from what they read, hear or see.
“Gaye Tuchman argues that all news events are inherently stories and should be treated as such” (Tuchman 1978, cited in O’Sullivan, 2004). – This perspective completely disregards the ideal of objectivity as a goal to strive for. Objectivity is impossible and why pretend that it is something worth trying for?
The three level system of enquiry:
- reactive reporting – information obtained from authoritative people and documents. Reactive reporting does not account for the whole story, but the immediate event and the information obtained within time constraints.
- analytic reporting – more than a superficial report. “Journalists are looking for the answers to how and why.” (Bowman and McIlwaine, 2001, p.105).
- reflective reporting – considers broad patterns and trends – social, political issues.
Bowman and McIlwaine state that a journalist should go through each of these levels in their news gathering process.
If such a pattern of news reporting is achieved, journalists will become more accountable for the events and issues they have covered. There will be a complete coverage of the detail of an occurrence and of the wider implications it has for a society.
This kind of reporting is an ideal for journalists to strive for. It is a good theoretical process to follow. However in reality, journalists would only go through such a process for the biggest and best stories – the stories where there is a lot of public interest, or the issue should be covered as such for the public’s interest to be served at its best.
The first stories that come to mind with this process occurring is the Dr Haneef case, the federal election (and all the stories within this), terrorist attacks, large stock market changes, interest rate changes, natural disasters etc.
News values would dictate whether this 3 level process of news gathering would occur for a story – is it affecting a large proximity of the population, is the impact of the event worth the coverage, is the event unusual enough to be covered, how long ago did the event happen and are the impacts still being felt? Etc.
Again – the issues covered this week serve to highlight to difference between theoretical ideals and the reality of journalistic practices. It is still important, in my opinion, to keep such ideals in mind when practicing journalism, so as not to lose sight of the reason for being a journalist or the reason for reporting the news. Reminding oneself of the theoretical reasons behind journalistic practices ensures that reality does not stray too far away from these ideals.
References:
Bowman L, McIlwaine S, 2001, ‘The importance of enquiry’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 102 – 112.
O’Sullivan R, 2004, ‘Exploding the objectivity myth: A case study of participatory journalism’, ejournalist.au.com, issue 04/01, 23 pages, viewed 27/8/07, http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ejournalist/osullivan.pdf
Tickle S, 2001, ‘The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 89 – 101.
Chapters 6 and 7:
There is no way that a journalist can be objective. A person’s world view is shaped by social groups, family, political groups, events in their lives, the country in which they live, the entire context of a person’s up-bringing and current life. Some of the biases that are articulated in journalistic publications can be both/either consciously or unconsciously put there.
Objectivity is an ideology to strive for.
Truth is subjective. Truth is different for every person because their perspective is subjectively shaped.
Language shapes our description of the truth – it is not an exact communication of our perceptions, “Language is an imprecise communication tool,” (Tickle, 2001, p. 89) and “language does not describe reality, it actually constructs it.” (Turner, 1993, cited in Tickle, 2001, p.90).
There are some obvious pressures that affect journalists in the level of objectivity of their work
- Pressures from their employer (consciously or unconsciously considered) to take an angle on a story or to only write certain stories depending on media partners, advertisers, sponsors, corporate links etc.
- Pressures from the commercial structure of journalism to create appealing stories for higher audience numbers or readers – infotainment, sensationalism, short stories, soft news etc.
- Pressures from their industry alliance or association to abide by their code of conduct or ethics (AJA, MEAA etc).
- Pressures from their own conscience to express a personal bias.
- Pressures from social, cultural, religious or political networks or associations to express a certain perspective on issues.
Due to these obvious and underlying pressures that affect one’s perception of the truth, different journalists can report quite different accounts of an event or issue. The images, the content and the framing of a story (through words and focus and layout) produce the audience’s understanding of the issue or event being reported.
The impossibility of objectivity in journalism leaves it to the audiences of journalistic productions to discern the truth from what they read, hear or see.
“Gaye Tuchman argues that all news events are inherently stories and should be treated as such” (Tuchman 1978, cited in O’Sullivan, 2004). – This perspective completely disregards the ideal of objectivity as a goal to strive for. Objectivity is impossible and why pretend that it is something worth trying for?
The three level system of enquiry:
- reactive reporting – information obtained from authoritative people and documents. Reactive reporting does not account for the whole story, but the immediate event and the information obtained within time constraints.
- analytic reporting – more than a superficial report. “Journalists are looking for the answers to how and why.” (Bowman and McIlwaine, 2001, p.105).
- reflective reporting – considers broad patterns and trends – social, political issues.
Bowman and McIlwaine state that a journalist should go through each of these levels in their news gathering process.
If such a pattern of news reporting is achieved, journalists will become more accountable for the events and issues they have covered. There will be a complete coverage of the detail of an occurrence and of the wider implications it has for a society.
This kind of reporting is an ideal for journalists to strive for. It is a good theoretical process to follow. However in reality, journalists would only go through such a process for the biggest and best stories – the stories where there is a lot of public interest, or the issue should be covered as such for the public’s interest to be served at its best.
The first stories that come to mind with this process occurring is the Dr Haneef case, the federal election (and all the stories within this), terrorist attacks, large stock market changes, interest rate changes, natural disasters etc.
News values would dictate whether this 3 level process of news gathering would occur for a story – is it affecting a large proximity of the population, is the impact of the event worth the coverage, is the event unusual enough to be covered, how long ago did the event happen and are the impacts still being felt? Etc.
Again – the issues covered this week serve to highlight to difference between theoretical ideals and the reality of journalistic practices. It is still important, in my opinion, to keep such ideals in mind when practicing journalism, so as not to lose sight of the reason for being a journalist or the reason for reporting the news. Reminding oneself of the theoretical reasons behind journalistic practices ensures that reality does not stray too far away from these ideals.
References:
Bowman L, McIlwaine S, 2001, ‘The importance of enquiry’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 102 – 112.
O’Sullivan R, 2004, ‘Exploding the objectivity myth: A case study of participatory journalism’, ejournalist.au.com, issue 04/01, 23 pages, viewed 27/8/07, http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ejournalist/osullivan.pdf
Tickle S, 2001, ‘The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…’, Tapsall S and Varley C, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 89 – 101.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
