WHEN OBJECTIVE REPORTING IRRESPONSIBLE REPORTING
Agu, Ikenna E.
BSU/SS/COM/PHD/16/7340
COM 902: Media Rights and Responsibilities
Department of Mass Communication
Benue State University, Makurdi
Abstract
The paper discussed the topic “when is objective reporting irresponsible reporting”. The paper itemized and analyzed objective reporting and irresponsible reporting in the conceptual clarification. Social responsibility theory was used to underline this paper. In the literature review, a case was presented which served as the basis for this paper. In the conclusion, many pertinent questions were asked pertaining when is objective reporting irresponsible reporting? Is it sufficient when covering public controversy to simply report the facts accurately and fairly? Does it matter that fair and accurate reporting of facts might not do justice to the truth about the fact? Does the practice of objective reporting distance the reporters from the substance of their stories in ways contrary to the ideals of responsible journalism? In conclusion, it was agreed that the it is applicable when a reporter fails to marry truth and facts in his report. When the facts sideline the truth and create the impression that the truth never existed, when the reporter feeds the readers with only the facts and never made any effort to investigate and know the truth, and finally when the reported facts do not represent the truth, one can say that objective reporting is irresponsible reporting.
Key Words: Objective Reporting, Irresponsible Reporting
Introduction
Reporting is an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc. in presenting this report, it is expected that the reporter will be objective and this means that he must produce a balance report. In media, balance report portends that the reporter must report all sides to a story, give all the parties fair hearing and show same in his report.
Kaplan (2002) said that when this is properly done, it is referred as objective reporting, but when a reporter does anything short of this; it calls to question the objectivity of the report.He further said that not all media reports that are objective could be regarded as responsible reporting adding that reporting the facts sometimes could be dangerous hence he recommended the reporting of truth.
Mindich (1998) argued that a reporter should concern himself with only fact reporting because since the main objective of a reporter covering an event is to present accurate account of the occurrences in the event, that it will be unethical if he goes beyond that.
This paper will in details, discuss when objective reporting is regarded as irresponsible reporting taking into consideration that the job of a reporter is to is to give accurate and unbiased account of an event as it happened. A case will be presented and discussed on this matter.
Conceptual Clarification
Objective Reporting
It is a considerable notion within the discussion of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity may refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. First evolving as a practice in the 18th century, a number of critiques and alternatives to the notion have emerged since, fuelling ongoing and dynamic discourse surrounding the ideal of objectivity in journalism.
Most newspapers and TV stations depend upon news agencies for their material, and each of the four major global agencies (Agence France-Presse (formerly the Havas agency), Associated Press, Reuters and Agencia EFE) began with and continue to operate on a basic philosophy of providing a single objective news feed to all subscribers. That is, they do not provide separate feeds for conservative or liberal newspapers. Journalist Jonathan Fenby has explained the notion to achieve such wide acceptability, the agencies avoid overt partiality. Demonstrably correct information is their stock in trade. Traditionally, they report at a reduced level of responsibility, attributing their information to a spokesman, the press, or other sources. They avoid making judgments and steer clear of doubt and ambiguity. Though their founders did not use the word, objectivity is the philosophical basis for their enterprises – or failing that, widely acceptable neutrality.
Objectivity in journalism aims to help the audience make up their own mind about a story, providing the facts alone and then letting audiences interpret those on their own. To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Objective reporting is meant to portray issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writers opinion or personal beliefs.
Schudson (1997) suggests that "the belief in objectivity is a faith in 'facts,' a distrust in 'values,' and a commitment to their segregation". Objectivity also outlines an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate, a body that exists apart from government and large interest groups.
Journalistic objectivity requires that a journalist not be on either side of an argument. The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion that may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally refers to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts": truthfulness, neutrality, and detachment.
Truthfulness is a commitment to reporting only accurate and truthful information, without skewing any facts or details to improve the story or better align an issue with any certain agenda. Neutrality suggests that stories be reported in an unbiased, even-handed, and impartial manner. Under this notion, journalists are to side with none of the parties involved, and simply provide the relevant facts and information of all. The third idea, detachment, refers to the emotional approach of the journalist. Essentially, reporters should not only approach issues in an unbiased manner, but also with a dispassionate and emotionless attitude. Through this strategy, stories can be presented in a rational and calm manner, letting the audience make up their minds without any influences from the media. Some scholars and journalists criticize the understanding of objectivity as neutrality or nonpartisanship, arguing that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find truth. They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in practice—newspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources they quote. Media critics such as Edward and Noam C (1988) have described a propaganda model that they use to show how, in practice, such a notion of objectivity ends up heavily favoring the viewpoint of government and powerful corporations, ultimately perhaps leading to an over-reliance on 'official' sources. Mainstream commentators accept that news value drives selection of stories, but there is some debate as to whether catering to an audience's level of interest in a story makes the selection process non-objective.
Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to communication scholar David Mindich, was the coverage that the major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the period described the hanging, immolation and mutilation of people by mobs with detachment and, through the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to construct a "false balance" of these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury. Mindich suggests that by enabling practices of objectivity and allowing them to "go basically unquestioned", it may have had the effect of normalizing the practice of lynching.
As discussed above, with the growth of mass media, especially from the 19th 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". In modern journalism, especially with the emergence of 24-hour news cycles, speed is of the essence in responding to breaking stories. It is therefore not possible for reporters to decide "from first principles" how they will report each and every story that presents itself - thus, some scholars argue that mere convention (versus a true devotion to truth-seeking) has come to govern much of journalism.
Brent Cunningham, the managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review, argues that objectivity excuses lazy reporting. He suggests that objectivity makes us passive recipients of news, rather than aggressive analyzers and critics of it. According to Cunningham, the nut of the tortured relationship with objectivity lies within a number of conflicting diktats that the press was subjected to operate under: be neutral yet investigative; be disengaged yet have an impact; and be fair-minded yet have an edge. Cunningham, however, argues that reporters by and large are not ideological warriors; rather, they are imperfect people performing a difficult job that is crucial to society and, "despite all our important and necessary attempts to minimize [individual's] humanity, it can't be any other way," Cunningham concludes.
The debate about objectivity is lit also within the photojournalism field. In 2011, Italian photographer Ruben Salvadori challenged the expectation of objective truth that the general public associates to photojournalism with his project "Photojournalism Behind the Scenes". By including the traditionally invisible photographer into the frame, Salvadori sought to ignite a discussion about the ethics of the profession, and indicate a need for audiences to be active viewers who understand and recognize the potential subjectivity of the photographic medium.
Alternatives views
Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness.
Brent Cunningham suggests that reporters should understand their inevitable biases, so they can explore what the accepted narratives may be, and then work against these as much as possible. He points out that “[w]e need deep reporting and real understanding, but we also need reporters to acknowledge all that they don’t know, and not try to mask that shortcoming behind a gloss of attitude, or drown it in a roar of oversimplified assertions”. Cunningham suggests the following to solve the apparent controversies of objectivity:
• Journalists should acknowledge, humbly and publicly, that what they do is far more subjective and far less detached than the aura of 'objectivity' implies. He proposes that this will not end the charges of bias, but rather allow journalists to defend what they do from a more realistic and less hypocritical position.
• Journalists should be free and encouraged to develop expertise and to use it to sort through competing claims, identifying and explaining the underlying assumptions of those claims, and making judgments about what readers and viewers need to know and understand about what is happening.
In the words of another scholar, Faina (2012) suggests that modern journalists may function as "sensemakers" within the shifting contemporary journalistic environment.
Irresponsible Reporting
A journalist distributes news, collects and writes information. Journalists usually do what it takes to get the story done by taking risk when writing a story and exposing themselves to dangerous areas to collect information for a story. In spite of this all, journalism has developed a variety of standards and ethics in which journalist must follow. In this paper you will read about journalism ethical responsibility, if there is ever deception or censorship permissible in journalism, and what ethical obligations do reporters have to their readers and sources. Journalism’s ethical responsibility as a profession
Kylie (2016) said that the utmost mission of the journalist is to serve the people’s right to accurate and dependable information through an honest dedication. Facts should be reported carefully in their proper context and not causing distortions. In this case the public is provided with sufficient substance to facilitate the development of an accurate and wide-ranging picture of what’s going on around the world. The information in journalism is known as collective good and not a service. This means that journalist not only shares the responsibility for the transmitted information, but they are also accountable to the public and those that controls the media.
She further stated that the journalist’s social responsibility necessitates that they will act under all situations in traditional values with a personal ethical consciousness. The journalist social role insists that the profession sustain high standards of integrity which gives the journalist’s the right to cease from working against their conviction or from revealing sources of information. The organization should allow journalists to have the right to participate in the decision-making as well. The profession integrity does not permit the journalist to accept the promotion of any private interest opposing to the general welfare or any form of inducement.
Freedom of speech can be good only in terms of its instrumental value according to utilitarian point of view. The professional standards of the journalist prescribe due respect for the national community, its democratic institutions and public morals. A true journalist stands for the collective importance of humanism, democracy, human rights, national liberation and social progress. They should also participate enthusiastically in social transformation towards democratic betterment of society and contribute their time through dialogue with confidence in international relations beneficial to peace and justice everywhere.
With this said, journalist should respect the significance and dignity of each culture and the distinctive character. In the ethics of profession, the journalist should be aware of relevant provisions contained in international resolutions, conventions and declarations. When, if ever, is deception or censorship permissible in journalism? Media outlets must weigh the impending legal liabilities of using deceptive methods to obtain information against the assessment of that information. Due to this factor, there is no apparent answer to whether deception in journalism is unprofessional and ethically wrong.
The intact matter of deception in story telling is usually complex. When deception is used in other areas of journalism the most unconscionable acts often are perpetrated. If deception is discussed in newsgathering, certain tremendous situation mean that a journalist may have to deceive to get the significant part of the story, which is ethically revolting and evidently unprofessional. If deception was to be believed professionally and morally there ought to be no other way to bring together the information and the story must be of immense interest to the public, but this does not mean that the public would be interested.
Theoretical Framework
Social Responsibility Theory
The media like any other sector should not harm, but should promote environment and socio-cultural aspects in relation to the economy of the place. Social Responsibility theory of mass media is relatively a new concept which started in the mid-20th century and is used mostly by developing and least developed countries. The theory started from Europe and took a shape with the Commission on the Freedom of Press that happened in United States in 1949. The model was designed formally by Siebert, Peterson and Schramm in 1956 in their book. It encourages total freedom to press and no censorship, but it should be regulated according to social responsibilities and external controls. Content is also filtered through public obligation and interference. The theory replaced libertarian theory with the view that libertarianism was outdated. The theory also incorporates some aspects of authoritarian theory. After the emergence of this theory, professionalism in media started to be taken seriously.
Social Responsibility Theory Concepts
“Freedom of expression under the social responsibility theory is not an absolute right, as under pure libertarian theory. One’s right to free expression must be balanced against the private rights of others and against vital society interest. – Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm. The social responsibility theory of mass media changed the way press published news from objective reporting to interpretative reporting. Before this theory, facts were presented without any interpretation. The social responsibility theory of mass media changed the way press published news from objective reporting to interpretative reporting. Before this theory, facts were presented without any interpretation.
The audience interpreted it the way they wanted to. This caused problems as interpretation was not based on reality and it affected the social order. Interpretative reporting and investigative reporting started to uncover the reality behind every case. In Social Responsibility Theory, the press is taken to be for the people and society. The tasks of the press is to make a code of conduct and follow it, to develop a standard in journalism, to make journalism better, to protect journalists and to have penalties if any journalist violates the code of conduct. This way, the facts provided by the press are analyzed and interpreted so that the people get true information and understandable news. This helps maintain social harmony by revealing social evils like corruption and discouraging other bad conducts.
The media is taken as a place for the voiceless to have a voice and develop public opinions where each and every person has the right to speak, express and publish. . It is considered not an end but a tool for social development. Therefore, the objectives of media are stated to inform, document, analyze, interpret, mediate and mobilize by creating and finding solutions.
Major Features of Social Responsibility Theory
• Private press ownership
Press is supposed to be owned privately. The government does not own the press. The private owners should publish within the ethical guidelines and in a responsible way.
• Helps democracy prosper
• Media as a democratic institution
Media is not a part of the government and it must work on its own. It has the freedom to do anything they want, just not work out of the ethical standards.
\
• Public participation
Public must get to participate through comments, response, write and get involved in all aspects of media’s work.
• Emphasis on social responsibility
The media must be responsible towards the society.
• Self-regulation in media
The media must have some boundaries within itself to be ethical. The regulations are to be followed by all the media professionals involved in the particular institution.
• Code of ethics
All the media institutions must have a written or unwritten code of ethics which should be the standard followed by all.
• Professional standards
The quality of the publishing should be maintained, false interpretation of any information should be avoided.
• Media role of criticizing government
Media is allowed to criticize the government roles, works and policies. It is done to help the government get better.
• Helping eradicate social problems
Media must speak against and aware people about social problems as it is media’s responsibility to work for the betterment of the society.
• Pluralistic media (including ideas and people from different groups)
Media must write the views of different groups of people and not only about a single group. It must never be biased.
• Social benefit
Media must work for the society and only do the things that are beneficial to the society. It should not write about the things that are ambiguous or contradictory as those message might cause conflict in the society.
The theory allows
- Everyone to say something or express their opinion about the media.
- Community opinion, Consumer action and professional ethics.
- Serious invasion of recognized private rights and vital social interests.
- Private ownership in media may give better public service unless government has to take over to assure the public to provide better media service.
- Media must take care of social responsibility and if they do not, government or other organisation will do.
Strengths of Social Responsibility Theory
• It helps in avoiding conflicts during wars and conflicts.
• It accepts public opinion and works for the citizens.
• Press and media houses do not have monopoly as rules and ethics guide them.
• The media publishes truth due to regulatory activities and their moral obligation to do so .
• Yellow journalism decreases as media can be questioned by the law and public.
• There is pluralism and diversification on news and people involved.
• The voiceless and marginalized people are able to raise their voice.
Weaknesses of Social Responsibility Theory
• Ethics are always vague, ambiguous and differs from case to case.
• It is difficult to determine who sets clear principles and standards.
Social responsibility and ethics are morally obligatory things. Any form of legal limitations should not be imposed if media is just working in the principle of responsibility. Laws are authoritative and not democratic concepts.
Relevance of the theory to the topic
Social responsibility theory is a theory that encourages a practitioner to be objective, fair and balance in reportage especially to the good of the society. In line with the topic of this paper, the theory properly underlines this work taking into consideration that when a good objective reporting is done, it reflects positively in the society and reverse is the case, it has negative impact in the society.
Literature Review
Case 2 –E: When Is Objective Reporting Irresponsible Reporting?
Theodore l. Glasser
Amanda Laurens, a reporter for a local daily newspaper, covers the city mayor’s office, where yesterday she attended a press conference. The mayor Ben Adams read a statement accusing Evan Michaels, a city council member, of being a “paid liar” for the pesticide industry. “Councilman Michaels.” The mayor said at the press conference, “has intentionally distorted the facts about the effects of certain pesticides on birds indigenous to the local area. “Mr. Michael,” the mayor continued, “is on the payroll of a local pesticide manufacturer,” and his views on the effects of pesticides on bird life “are necessarily tainted.”
The press conference ended at about 5:15p.m, less than an hour before her 6:00pm, deadline Laurens quickly contacted Councilman Michaels for a quote in response to the mayor’s statement. Michaels, however, refused to comment, except to say that Mayor Adam’s accusations were “utter nonsense” and “politically motivated.” Laurens filed her story, which included both the mayor’s accusation and the councilman’s denial. Laurens’s editor thought the story was fair and balanced and ran it the following morning on the front page.
The mayor was pleased with the coverage he received; he thought Laurens had acted professionally and responsibly by reporting his accusation along with Michaels’s denial. Anything else, the mayor thought would have violated the principles of objective journalism. The mayor had always believed that one of the most important responsibilities of the press was to provide an impartial forum for public controversies, and the exchange between him and the councilman was certainly a bona fide public controversy, Deciding who’s right and who’s wrong is not the responsibilities of journalists, the mayor believed, but a responsibility best left to readers.
Councilman Michaels, in contrast, was outraged. He wrote a scathing letter to the editor, chiding the newspaper for mindless, irresponsible journalism, “The story may have been fair, balanced and accurate, “he wrote, “but it was not truthful, “ He had never lied about the effects of pesticides on the bird life and he had “never been on the payroll of any pesticide manufacturer” he wrote “A responsible reporter would do more the report the fact truthfully; she would also report the truth about the fact,” In this case, Michaels said, the reporter should have held off on the story until she had time to independently investigate the mayor’s accusation: and if the accusation had proved to be of no merit, as Michaels insisted, then there shouldn’t have been a story, Or if there had to be a story, Michaels added, “it should be a story about the mayor lying.”
By way of background: The effects of pesticides on bird life had been a local issue for nearly a year. Part of the community backs Mayor Adams’s position on the harmful effects of certain pesticides and supports local legislation that would limit or ban their use. Others in the community support Councilman Michaels’s position that the evidence on the effects of pesticides on bird life is at best ambiguous and that more scientific study is needed before anyone proposes legislation. They argue that pesticides are useful, particularly to local farmers who need them to protect crops, and because the available evidence about their deleterious effects is inconclusive, they believe that the city council should not seek further restrictions or prohibit their use. The exchange between Mayor Adams and Councilman Michaels is the latest in the series of verbal bout on the subject of pesticides and the city’s role in their regulations.
Discussion
Taking into cognizance the case study of this paper, one will be force to raise son questions as regards the reportage of the reporter. Did the reporter do the right thing by submitting her story without the benefit of an independent investigation into Mayor’s accusation about councilman Michael? Is Mayor correct by arguing that the reporter acted responsibly, by providing fair and balanced coverage of both sides of a public controversy without trying to judge whose side is right or wrong? Is the councilman correct by arguing that the reporter acted irresponsibly by concerning herself only with reporting the facts truthfully and ignoring the “truth about the facts”? Is it sufficient when covering public controversy to simply report the facts accurately and fairly? Does it matter that fair and accurate reporting of facts might not do justice to the truth about the fact?
Does the practice of objective reporting distance the reporters from the substance of their stories in ways contrary to the ideals of responsible journalism? If the reporter serves as the eyes and ears of their readers, how can they be expected to report more than what they have seen and heard? What distinguishes facts from the truth? For which should a journalist accept responsibility? Finally, if a journalist knows that fact is not true, do they have the obligation to share that knowledge with the readers? And if they do share that knowledge, how can they claim to be objective in their reporting?
Conclusion
There is no doubt that facts are sacred and forms the basis for the practice of journalism but it hurts both the individual and the society when truth is sacrificed to the altar of facts. In applying Social Responsibility Theory of the Media here, the good of the society must always drive the actions of a reporter in all his endeavours. A good reporter must creating an enabling ground to marry both facts and truth, and to ensure that proper fair and balance are applied in his report for the benefit of his reader and society at large.
Finally, to answer the question “When Is Objective Reporting Irresponsible Reporting?” it is applicable when a reporter fails to marry truth and facts in his report. When the facts sideline the truth and create the impression that the truth never existed, when the reporter feeds the readers with only the facts and never made any effort to investigate and know the truth, and finally when the reported facts do not represent the truth, one can say that objective reporting is irresponsible reporting?
References
Cunningham Brent's faculty page Archived 2012-02-01 at the Wayback Machine. Columbia Journalism School, accessed 20 December 2012
Cunningham, B. (2003). "Re-thinking Objectivity". Columbia Journalism Review. Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (July/August). Retrieved 20 December 2012.
Edward, H. and Noam, C. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon
Faina, J. (2012). Public journalism is a joke: The case for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Journalism,14(4), 541-555. doi:10.1177/1464884912448899
Jacquette, D (2007). Journalistic ethics: Moral responsibility in the media. New Jersy: Pearson
Kaplan, R. (2002). Politics and the American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kylie G. (Retrieved April, 2016) https://getmyessay.com/essay-on-ethically-responsible-irresponsible-news-reporting/
Mindich, D (1998). Just the Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism. New York: New York University Press.
Schudson, M. (1997). "The Sociology of News Production." In Social Meaning of News: A Text-Reader. Dan Berkowitz, ed. Pp. 7–22. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Theodore, L.G (2016) CASE 2 –E: When Is Objective Reporting Irresponsible Reporting? Stanford: Stantford University
Comments
Post a Comment