Transformations: Responsible Journalism
MEDIA, 19 Apr 2010
Roberto Sansón Mizrahi – Opinion Sur
In a context of antagonist confrontation, it is difficult to practice journalism with a certain degree of objectivity. Some media and journalists act intentionally, driven by motivations that could not be openly confessed; the absence of objectivity is deliberate. Others are pillars of democratic life; they may occasionally be wrong, but seek to help channel energies in a constructive manner. Media and journalists select and present the news in a hierarchical arrangement according to their viewpoints, values or interests; they determine what processes and situations are worth covering or ignoring, and how to present the news in either case. There is much to be learned about motivations, ways of operating, how information can be manipulated by playing with headlines, front pages and subtitles.
Some weeks ago we debated with young journalists about mass media. In that dialog we dealt with three key matters that motivated the following reflections.
(i) Objectivity in the heat of antagonist confrontations
In a context of virulent antagonist confrontation, it becomes difficult to practice journalism with a certain degree of objectivity. In point of fact, journalists, to make a living, depend on contracts made with media which, on many occasions, play a part in that confrontation; journalists are chosen or kept in their jobs as long as they stick to the editorial line defined by those who own or run the news media. This situation becomes worse if the media are concentrated in the hands of a very small number of large media groups. Likewise, if publicly-owned news media are involved in a virulent antagonist confrontation, they will also choose journalists who adhere to the government’s orientation; any deviation from their political line will imply punishment or persecution.
In these circumstances it becomes hard to rise up to the information challenge with stature and seriousness; in fact, what happens is that one form chicanery is met with another form chicanery, information is deformed, media and journalists slip into fierce activism; biased information and disinformation prevail; opponents become enemies. We debated whether that outcome is inevitable. That is, whether in an antagonism that escalates to levels of aggressive confrontation, the parties get inevitably trapped in that spiral that abominates objectivity, balance, are incapable of recognizing legitimate merits in their opponent, of taking a constructive approach. We also wondered whether even in that marshy and risky situation the parties might be capable of standing above chicanery, distortion, lie, disinformation, assuming whatever cost that might imply.
In this case, as in so many others, preventive action is no doubt more effective and less costly in personal and social terms than remedial or reconstructive action. The democratic effort would do a great job by seeking to prevent antagonist confrontations from growing larger and, should this occur, not getting caught in them, zeroing in on improving collective wellbeing. Here, journalism, political parties, trade union, business and civil society representatives, play a decisive role. They may incite the parties and deepen the confrontation in order to occupy, or profit from, the interstices resulting from antagonist confrontations (taking advantage of the troubled sea), thereby contributing to hindering policy-making or consensus-building efforts aimed at enhancing governance. Alternatively, they might contribute to constructively channeling the energies that today are being wasted in those confrontations, resentments, affronts.
Most probably, journalism is not responsible (at least not the only or main one to blame) for generating antagonist confrontations, or capable of playing the statesman, physician or firefighter roles, resolving by itself the destructive fall off the edge of the cliff. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it can stand up straight above the inflamed circumstance and, instead of adding fuel to the flames, devoting its effort to channel spirits to seek solutions. It may be thought that this viewpoint entails a certain dose of political naivety as, in a clash of sharks, the canniest or the one with the most powerful jaws would devour the enemy. Without ignoring that there are players of all sorts and furs, some very dangerous ones may get to lead situations, and even processes. It is precisely in the ideological, cultural, educational turf where it is necessary to concentrate efforts, i.e., work in order to transform aspects of our nature that are conducive to antagonist confrontations and give way to a culture that seeks to reach understandings and alignment of interests, peaceful settlement of controversies, constant improvement of situations, of processes and of our own individual conscience. This implies valuing dialog, the candid debate of ideas and initiatives, not being afraid of being branded as naive or idealists, mobilizing to skillfully craft sustainable solutions, without escalating the normal tensions that are part of human relations.
(ii) Is nobody objective?
Some of us believe that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity and, hence, claiming that the opponent is not completely objective is far from being a fallacy. The point is drawing attention to the fact that behind what anyone informs and thinks lie his viewpoints, specific interests, needs and emotions. What is yet to be admitted is that the same applies to the other side, our side.
It is also true, however, that there are different degrees of lack of objectivity; from an inadvertent or occasional bias to situations where deliberate and systematic disinformation is exercised, where there prevail deceptive information, interpretation bias, gross manipulation of sources and presentation of situations.
In one case, bona fide and a vocation to admit and correct occasional mistakes may repair or mitigate the effects of having acted with little objectivity. Honest journalists may come out of potential errors ever more solid in their profession, stick to a strict code of ethics, act professionally, exercise the prudence that their journalistic responsibility demands, tempering their firmness and independence. Yet, after all, they will still be imperfect human beings, just like all of us are. Their mistakes do not disqualify them, as long as they acknowledge and repair them.
Conversely, in the case of journalists who are venal or not free to speak their minds, or intentionally act in defense of certain economic, political or social interests, the absence of objectivity is deliberate, planned, used for spurious purposes, which they could not confess or vent in public. These cases stain the careers of certain journalists or news media, jeopardizing the credibility of other media workers who are pillars of democratic life.
(iii) The media and our social and individual agenda
The most dramatic aspect of the actions of the media and journalists is that they impact enormously on the definition of our social and individual agenda: they indicate what is important, valuable, interesting to read, see, or listen. They choose the information and contents of what they offer, which is only a tiny fraction of what happens in the world, in the country, in our city and neighborhood; they leave out much of what goes on, selecting what they cover in terms of what they deem should be shown to their respective audiences. When the media are concentrated in few hands, this situation is all the more serious because diversity in the choice of subjects, approaches and perspectives is lost, and the homogenization of information and thought (both strategic and daily) grows dangerously.
Certain media misinform by choosing totally socially irrelevant subjects and events, diverting attention toward show business gossip, lurid or scary events, scandals, with which they numb people’s consciousness, alienate minds, establish priorities with a bias toward hardly meaningful matters. Other media choose the information and the way it is presented according to the interests on which they are grounded, orienting the public opinion toward the defense of those interests which, sometimes, do not coincide with the interests and needs of vast population sectors. There is literature –good, just acceptable and bad– about how the media (both privately or publicly owned) and journalists section and understand reality, what processes and situations they cover or ignore; why they do so; how they manipulate information, how they play with headlines, front pages and subtitles to influence the receivers of that information or disinformation. There is much to learn and be informed about. In all modesty, Opinion Sur offer our readers these pages to list analyses and research studies about news media they may deem valuable, and wish to make public. This material is a major block in the construction of a referential utopia that shelters us all.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
great piece on an extremely relevant topic. thank you.