Week 7

Truth & Objectivity

I found this topic to be most interesting compared to previous weeks. Simply because these terms relate directly back to what a journalists job actually is. Truth and objectivity are the foundations of journalism. The public rely on the media to present ALL of the facts in an objective manner. Of course there is a significant amount of scepticism by the public. Most of us I'm sure would have heard the term "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story". But is this the case?? Many will argue yes because journalists are very selective in what facts they publish but is it because time pressures, market forces and work practices will limit a journalists ability to present ALL the facts truthfully and objectively?

I found it interesting that in our textbook, Tickle defends Australian journalists work practices by noting the Australian Journalists Association section of the MEAA Code of Ethics - It opens with 'Respect for the truth and the publics right to information are fundamental principles of journalism'. After reading through the start of chapter 6 of the text I felt as though there is definitely good intentions by those who work in the media to fulfil this duty of being impartial and to present the truth however in reality this doesn't always happen. I found this next table when I was having a look on the Internet to get a wider perspective on how journalism is perceived in regards to truth and objectivity:

The Elements of Journalism

Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth

Journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens

Journalism’s essence is a discipline of verification

Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover

It must serve as an independent monitor of power

It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise

It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional

Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
--Project for Excellence in Journalism

What do you guys think of this? Do you agree that these are all of the elements of journalism?

As I continued to read through the chapter I was very interested in the case studies (pg 95). The first one being about a photograph of Martin Bryant. It appeared differently in the publication in The Australian then in other publications. After being questioned, The Australian admitted to digitally enhancing an image to make it clearer. I personally was quite taken back to read about this in a Journalism textbook. I guess I always knew that this sort of thing happens but I never really stopped to think about it. This was something covered well by the presenters this week. It is interesting just how much it happens. It is sad that technology has taken away the things that we originally thought we could rely on for the complete and impartial truth (film and images). Just as the text notes, it is no longer rational to believe the camera doesn't lie. It has always been a tool that attempts to represent reality, but now media workers distort and edit photos and video to present something that will make $$ but something that's going to look after the interests of those who have power.

A perfect example of this is the media coverage of the war in Iraq and quite a few people have used this example. Western countries portrayed it as a stand against terrorists and that the US was helping stabilise the government there. Middle Eastern countries argue they were defending their people and protecting their countries resources (oil). The truth for us is only what the media has presented it as and I personally think that our government would have had a large influence on the way the war was perceived in the Australian media. The pictures used in the media from September 11 terrorist attacks is another example. The same picture was used in many newspapers but one showed the limbs and bodies on the ground and the other photo shopped them out. Censorship may be justified but how can we distinguish what is the truth. How can we determine how bad the impact was if the bodies were removed from the image?

An article written by David Brooks called ‘Objectivity in Journalism’ discusses the notion of media bias and politics. Brooks argues that it is not only important to tell the truth but to be fair about it but he questions whether objectivity can really exist. He further goes on to discuss the stages of getting to objectivity. The following is my interpretation of the stages he highlights.
Stage:

1. The first stage is ‘negative capacity’ — the ability to suspend judgment while you're looking at the facts. Sometimes when we look at a set of facts we like to choose the facts that make us feel good because it confirms our worldview. But if you're going to be objective — and this is for journalists or anybody else — surely the first stage is the ability to look at all the facts, whether they make you feel good or not.
2. The second stage is modesty. The example he uses is about Chief Justice John Roberts. He was asked by the Senators to emote. Senator Dianne Feinstein, for instance, asked him how he would react as a father to a certain case. It was as if she and other Senators wanted him to weep on camera. They wanted him to do the sentimental thing, in order to make them feel that he was one of them. But he absolutely refused, because his ethos as a lawyer and as a judge is not about self-exposure. It's about self-control. It's about playing a role in society — a socially useful role. Roberts kept explaining that judges wear black robes because it's not about them. It's about doing a job for society. Judges have to suppress some of themselves in order to read the law fairly and not prejudge cases. The same thing has to happen for journalists. We live in an age of self-exposure. But journalists have to suppress their egos so that they can see the whole truth, whether they like it or not.
3. The third stage of objectivity is the ability to process data — to take all the facts that you've accumulated and honestly process them into a pattern using judgment. How do you take all the facts that are in front of you and fit them into one pattern? Brooks example was if you pick up a cup of coffee, one part of your brain senses how heavy it is. Another part of your brain senses how hot it is. Another part of your brain senses the shape of the cup. Another part of your brain knows that you're shaking, which creates ripples across the surface of the coffee. All these parts are disconnected and we have no idea how the human brain processes that information. But some people are really good at connecting the dots and seeing the patterns and other people are not. And surely that's the third stage of objectivity, the ability to take all the data, not just the data you like, and form it into a whole.
4. The fourth stage of objectivity is the ability to betray friends. You need to distinguish between loyalty to the truth and loyalty to your team. The example Brooks gives for this is a politician in government who has loyalty to the party even if they know the truth. But for journalists and for most citizens, loyalty to the truth should dominate over loyalty to the team.
5. The fifth stage of objectivity is the ability to ignore stereotypes.
   And the last bit, the sixth stage is a willingness to be a little dull. It's easy to write an attack on someone to sell newspapers but that’s not fair.

I'm someone who fails every day at being objective but I thought this was an interesting perspective on how to achieve objectivity.

I personally feel though that whatever the truth may be, journalists themselves are participants in the news. The watchdog function of the media means that journalists must impose their own points of view in events and provide interpretation to give these events meaning. After all their job is to represent events in words, numbers, sound and pictures. Yes they should do this truthfully but what one person thinks is the truth may not always be what another thinks. The hardest thing about presenting the news through the truth -seeking process and to give an objective view is that the new 'all-in-one digital journalist' lacks the time, funds and help than they had access to in the past. Breaking news deadlines make it difficult for journalists to fully evaluate the credibility and accuracy of what they are reporting. I am starting to learn that journalists jobs aren't as easy or fun as what it originally seemed. The legal and ethical mindfield is massive and I sympathise with journalists who are getting slammed by the public for not being truthful and accurate. I personally feel as though it is something every journalist strives for but it is becoming harder to deliver- Investigative journalism as a practice is diminishing and this is very daunting for a future journalist such as myself as I'm sure you will all agree.

Can we blame the journalist for not fulfilling their duty to the public to present the news truthfully and impartially or can we blame those media moguls and political pressures who make a journalists job harder with the lack of staff funding and with tighter deadlines? Who can we blame?

This is a very interesting Essay on truth and objectivity in the media, written by an Australian Communications student and I think it's worth a read. It covers the topic from a wide range of angles and highlights key issues in relation to truth, objectivity and the media:

http://nebuchadnezzarwoollyd.blogspot.com/2007/02/objectivity-and-journalism-essay.html