Lines are Blurring in the New World of Journalism.
How can we be advocates and reporters at the same time? Is it even possible? And if this trend continues, where will it end and news begin or vice versa? Things are getting muddled now to our detriment.
My opinion is, as we have learned in class, is we are either advocates or reporters. We should not push our agenda discreetly or not, in any medium if we are calling ourselves journalists. Advocates have opinions, reporters present facts. The two lines should be clear and not as blurred as they have become.
5 comments:
What if the agenda is largely neutral in terms of what the stance being taken on it is? What if I have the agenda to very actively pursue raising money for the rehabilitation of former child soldiers? Or if I march for the resolution to genocide in Myanmar?
I totally understand not being able to have a political agenda. A reporter certainly can't go and campaign for Obama's re-election. But as I asked - should this apply to issues that are supported in totality?
Will anyone be angry with a reporter who actively participates in food drives or feeding the hungry?
I don't believe there is totality on any issue in this world. There are always people that disagree for w/e reason. For example, playing devil's advocate for a moment: I am sure there are ppl that would say don't feed the hungry they did it to themselves, or child soldiers chose to fight or killed people regardless, blah blah, blah. Its wrong, but finding an issue where someone won't complain is a rarity. Sad that thats the world we live in but true. Therefore, I still say the safest bet for a reporter is to present the facts as they know them, and present facts from both sides. Remaining neutral is vital.
I think that reporters have to remain neutral and keep their reporting, to stating facts, and not having a political or social agenda.
That's why we have editorials, to clearly define what is opinion and what is unbiased reporting.
We see what biased journalism is like when we watch networks like Fox News ,and we don't like it!
Drawing a line between being a reporter and an advocate is a difficult one. However, I think it can be done. It's important, as a journalist, to just be forthright about your affiliations.
If a reporter does have ties to a lobbying organization, said reporter should be honest when he may be covering issues that his organization has a vested interest in. In a perfect world, there would be no overlapping of this nature, but regardless, it all comes back to honesty.
Its funny, too, because in another course I am taking, I wrote a journalistic article, and kept my own opinion out of it. The results were that my classmates during a workshop thought that I should have put my opinion in it. Personally, that would defeat the purpose of journalistic REPORTING.
The thing that I kept coming back to was the ch. in the ethics book about the reporters marching in a pro-choice thing in D.C. My article was about something similar and I presented both sides. I really think it depends on the audience, but I also think my class was wrong as well, because you really can't put your own opinion in your writing without looking biased. Like Valerie said, we get enough of that on Fox.
Post a Comment