INTRODUCTION
Journalism is a
discipline of writing. News-oriented journalism is sometimes described as the
first rough draft of history, because the journalists often did record
important events, however producing news articles on short deadlines. While
under pressure to be first with their stories, news media organizations usually
edit and proof read their reports prior to publication, adhering to each organization
standards of accuracy, quality and style.
Journalism’s
main activities include stating who, what, when, where, why and how and stating
the significance and effects of certain events or trends. Journalism exists in
a number of media; newspaper, television, radio, magazines and most recently,
the World Wide Web through the internet.
The subject
matter of journalism can be anything and everything that they choose and
journalist report and write on a wide variety of subjects; political, the
international, national, provincial and local levels, economics and business on
the same four levels, health and medicine, education, sports, hobbies and
recreation, lifestyle, clothing, food, pets and relationships; journalists
report on anything that news organization think consumers will read.
Journalists can report for general interests news outlets like newspapers, news
magazines and broadcast sources; general circulation speciality publications
and outlets with a select group of subscribers.
Journalists
especially if they cover a specific subject or area are expected to cultivate
sources, people in the subject or areas that they can communicate with, either
to explain the details of a story, or to provide leads to other subject of
stories yet to be reported. They are also expected to develop their
investigative skills to better research and report stories.
Lippmann
understood that journalism’s role at the time was to act as a mediator or
translator between the public and policy-making elites. The journalist became
the middleman. When the Elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the
information, distilled it and passed it on to the public for their consumption.
His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a position to
deconstruct a growing and complex flurry of information present in modern
society. Lippmann put it this way, “the public is not smart enough to
understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too
consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy.”
Therefore, the
public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to
make the information plain and simple. That was the role of journalists.
Lippmann believed that the public would affect the decision making of the elite
with their votes.
Deway on the
other hand, believed the public was not only capable of understanding the
issues created or responded to by the elite, it was in the public forum that
decision should be made after discussion and debate. Dewey believed journalists
not only had to inform the public, but should report on issues differently than
simply passing on information. He believed that journalists should take
information, then, weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted by the
elites on the public.
While Lippmann’s
journalistic philosophy might be more acceptable to government leaders, Deway’s
approach is a better description of how many journalists see their role in the
society and in turn how much of society expects journalists to function.
OBJECTIVITY
AND BALANCE
All journalists
are trained to report and present stories in an objective and balanced way.
Balance means that all sides to a controversy are presented in such a way that
the reader, viewer or listener will at least understand and be exposed to more
than one side of the story. Objectivity means that the journalist will not
approach a story with a pre-set bias. Yet, human nature being what it is, no
one can approach a story or any information about a story with total
objectivity. One always brings pre-set biases
into any situation, whether that it due to religious upbringing, education or
exposure to societal norms. Because of that, most journalists say that they
cannot be objective, but that they can be fair.
Being fair means they can give all sides to a story even those sides
that they do not agree with or understand. Journalists who believe they are
being fair or objective may give biased accounts by reporting selectively,
trusting too much to anecdote, or giving a partial explanation of actions. Even
in routine reporting, bias can creep into a story through a reporter’s choice of
facts to summarize, or through failure to check enough sources, hear and report
dissenting voices, or seek fresh perspectives.
Most journalists
believe that they are under professional obligations to be objective and balanced.
Many journalists concede that it is near impossible to be truly objective since
everyone comes with their own sets of experiences and biases. These journalists prefer to say that they are
fair. In other words, even though they
may personally believe in the theory of evolution, they promise to be fair by
presenting the opposing viewpoint or viewpoints in a non-pejorative way. But
this objectivity—or fairness—oftentimes proved frustrating. Why, for example,
should journalists give equal time and space to global warming deniers if 99%
of scientists believe that global warming is a scientific phenomena?
But according to
Kovach and Rosenstiel, this original notion of objectivity has been lost into a
formulaic approach that tends to measure ―balance by how many words or minutes
are devoted to each side. Balance, for
instance, can lead to distortion, Kovach and Rosenstiel write,
“If an
overwhelming percentage of scientists, as an example, believe that global warming
is a scientific fact, or that some medical treatment is clearly the safest, it
is a disservice to citizens and truthfulness to create the impression that the
scientific debate is equally split.
Unfortunately, all too often journalistic balance is misconstrued to
have this kind of almost mathematical meaning, as if a good story is one that
has an equal number of quotes from two sides.
As journalists know, often there are more than two sides to a story. And sometimes balancing them equally is not a
true reflection of reality”.
Fairness, in
turn, can also be misunderstood if it is seen to be a goal unto itself. Fairness should mean the journalist is being
fair to the facts and to a citizen‘s understanding of them. It should not mean,
―Am I being fair to my sources, so that none of them will be unhappy? ‘Nor
should it mean that journalist asking, ―does my story seems fair?’ These are
subjective judgments that may steer the journalists away from the need to do
more to verify her work.
While objectivity,
balance and fairness are goals for most professional news organizations, it is
simply that, goals as opposed to a mandate.
Most professional media organizations believe it is good business and
good journalism to try to present news and information is a fair, objective and
balanced way.
With the growth of mass media, especially from
the nineteenth century, news advertising became the most important source of
media revenue. Whole audiences needed to be engaged across communities and
regions to maximize advertising revenue. This led to "Journalistic
Objectivity as an industry standard…a set of conventions allowing the news to
be presented as all things to all people". And in modern journalism,
especially with the emergence of 24-hour news cycles, speed is of the essence
in responding to breaking stories. It is not possible for reporters to decide
"from first principles" every time how they will report each and
every story that presents itself. So convention of regulating bodies such as
GJA in Ghana governs much of journalism.
TRUTHFULNESS
AND ACCURACY
Democracy
depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful
context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical
sense, but it can and must pursue it in a practical sense. This ‘journalistic
truth’ is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling
and verifying facts. The journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account
of their meaning, valid for now, transparent as possible about sources and
methods so audiences can make their assessment of the information. Even in a
world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything
else is built – context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and
debate. The truth overtime, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an
even greater flow of data, they have more
need-not-less-for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information
and putting it in context.
Journalists rely
on a professional discipline for verifying information when the concept of
objectivity originally evolved. It did not imply that journalists are free of
bias. It called rather for a consistent method of testing information – a
transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and cultural
biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective
not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as all
signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates
journalism from other modes of communication such as propaganda, fiction or
entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully
recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for
determining facts, for instance it has done less to develop a system for
testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.
The news media
are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a
basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it
is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should
strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society and
to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of
debate. Accuracy and truthfulness requires that as farmers of the public
discussion were not neglecting the points of common ground where problem
solving occurs. Journalism is story-telling with a purpose. It should do more
than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it
must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but
need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and
relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how
much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must
continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form,
while journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public
safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders
a trivial society. Journalists
need to make a commitment to telling the truth. This includes not giving false
or made-up reports, and telling truthful stories that are not intended to
deceive the audience. This may require reporters to provide not only the facts
but also the context surrounding them. Truthfulness requires a commitment not
only from the journalist but also from the organization he or she works for.
Accuracy comes ahead of speed. If a journalist is not sure,
hold fire. Being first and wrong is not a model to aim for. Being right, always
reliable and measured is. Those who trust you will be prepared to wait for your
version. In fact they might use your coverage to check whether a hastily
prepared item by a competitor has any truth in it. Caution is particularly
needed if the topic is controversial. In such cases, too much haste can cause
lasting damage to your news brand. Most major news providers require: first-hand
sources, double-checking of facts, validation of material submitted, confirmation
via two reliable sources and corroboration of any claims or allegations made. It
is also important to have your own sources. Do not just chase those used by
others. They may not be reliable. Build your own network of trusted contacts
and turn to those.
CONLUSION
In conclusion, veracity of stories from modern journalism derives
from objectivity and balance and truthfulness and accuracy behoves on every
journalist to have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility. Each of journalists
must be willing, if fairness and accuracy require, truthfulness, the voice
differences with their colleagues in the newsroom. To sum up, journalism must be: well-sourced,
supported by strong evidence, examined and tested and clear and unambiguous.
REFERENCES
Cunningham,
B. (2003). "Re-thinking Objectivity", Columbia Journalism
Review (Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism) (July/August), retrieved
20 December 2012
Introduction to
journalism and Mass Media, Dr. S. N. Dix it, 2007, Daryaganj.
Kovach, S. and Rosenstiel, D. (1998). Just the Facts: How “Objectivity”
Came to Define American Journalism. New York: New York University Press.
