I feel it is very difficult to come to a solid conclusion about notions of truth and objectivity in journalism, as these concepts are difficult to define at the best of times. For this reason it was interesting to read the interpretations in Chapter 6 regarding the history of truth as a concept and the idea that there is no simple way to define it. Can we understand truth if we haven’t directly witnessed the event? Can truth be universal? Or are cultural theorists correct in saying that truth can't be represented as it is a construction? While I agree that everyone's interpretation of the truth is different, I would like to believe that truth can still be represented as accurately as possible, even if there is always someone that disagrees. I also believe that it has become harder to determine the truth in the face of technological advances and the pressures faced by journalists, including time pressures, and pressures from market forces (including things like globalisation), laws, work culture and their own experiences. With new digital media, the tiered structure which previously existed to sift news is flattened-hence fact and source checking will be reduced or skipped. Alongside this it is indeed very difficult to put aside your own bias on an issue and report it in an objective manner.
I think it is true that the news not only describes, but constructs our reality, and it is for this reason that it is important to get as close to the truth as possible when reporting. However there are many truths out there and it is important to consider whose truth journalists will tell? Journalists turn to those of authority to verify truths, and I think it is for this reason that many people feel the truth isn’t being told, and indeed such sources can never be assumed to be totally accurate. Ultimately, journalists need to exercise judgement and select crucial elements of stories. Journalists can’t believe anything until it has been verified by the most authoritative source possible, and they must consider that there are many sides to a story. This is where further investigation needs to be undertaken by the journalist to uncover the truth. For example during the Chamberlain case, Kevin Hitchcock, a well-known and respected 10 Network television newsman, made a documentary that showed the other evidence available, and was critical in influencing the tide of public opinion to swing in favour of the Chamberlains. He started to suspect the information being provided by the Northern Territory authorities and chose to examine other sources, including witnesses, and local aboriginals (despite the fact that when he started he actually believed the Chamberlain's were guilty) (http://www.lindychamberlain.com/). Indeed it seems to be common in the media to jump to the conclusion that those who show little emotion over the disappearance of a loved one are guilty (ie Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees and the Mc Canns). And I think it is such personal bias that can lead to the burial of important truths. There is unquestionably bias in reporting, and with some media you have to have the right behaviour, viewpoint, or bias, to get in. For example, a reporter who wishes to work the police or government beat regularly will find it difficult or impossible to get interviews with those people unless they report in the way that the police or government wants them to report.
The attitude of the media in general towards the Chamberlain case changed many times, initially the general media was 'for' the Chamberlains. But within about three weeks, in response to rumours started by members of some media and some government agencies, the media began to go against the Chamberlains, as the reporting of rumours started. The rumours turned out to be false, but by then the damage had been done in influencing public thought. In several instances Lindy's responses in interviews were rearranged so they sounded different, and it is this blatant misuse of information that gives truth and journalism a bad name (http://www.lindychamberlain.com/). It is inevitable that when something happens outside our normal range of understanding, in absence of knowledge, we will accept the first explanation. From that point on, we will subconsciously, and continually, interpret all further information to agree with our first conclusion (this can be said for journalists and the public- this is why it's so important to attempt to tell the truth as accurately as possible).
So clearly the truth is slippery and while journalists may seem to have inadequate tools and time to fact-check etc, they must continue to practice the essential skills needed for presenting a credible description. Inaccurate reporting is often due to laziness, bad ethics, or time pressures, but journalists need to do what they can to overcome this. Ultimately most journalists would feel they are representing the truth, however this is different to deliberately fabricating a story, we need to maintain respect for the truth seeking process or else we will be faced with nothing but gossip and hearsay.
As chapter 7 outlines, a decrease in staff numbers, article length and context have all effected the reliability of info, but as discussed, stories can more accurately reveal truth if they are developed in three stages- reactive, analytical and reflective reporting. I have found examples of these notions in news stories surrounding the September 11 attacks.
I think it is true that the news not only describes, but constructs our reality, and it is for this reason that it is important to get as close to the truth as possible when reporting. However there are many truths out there and it is important to consider whose truth journalists will tell? Journalists turn to those of authority to verify truths, and I think it is for this reason that many people feel the truth isn’t being told, and indeed such sources can never be assumed to be totally accurate. Ultimately, journalists need to exercise judgement and select crucial elements of stories. Journalists can’t believe anything until it has been verified by the most authoritative source possible, and they must consider that there are many sides to a story. This is where further investigation needs to be undertaken by the journalist to uncover the truth. For example during the Chamberlain case, Kevin Hitchcock, a well-known and respected 10 Network television newsman, made a documentary that showed the other evidence available, and was critical in influencing the tide of public opinion to swing in favour of the Chamberlains. He started to suspect the information being provided by the Northern Territory authorities and chose to examine other sources, including witnesses, and local aboriginals (despite the fact that when he started he actually believed the Chamberlain's were guilty) (http://www.lindychamberlain.com/). Indeed it seems to be common in the media to jump to the conclusion that those who show little emotion over the disappearance of a loved one are guilty (ie Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees and the Mc Canns). And I think it is such personal bias that can lead to the burial of important truths. There is unquestionably bias in reporting, and with some media you have to have the right behaviour, viewpoint, or bias, to get in. For example, a reporter who wishes to work the police or government beat regularly will find it difficult or impossible to get interviews with those people unless they report in the way that the police or government wants them to report.
The attitude of the media in general towards the Chamberlain case changed many times, initially the general media was 'for' the Chamberlains. But within about three weeks, in response to rumours started by members of some media and some government agencies, the media began to go against the Chamberlains, as the reporting of rumours started. The rumours turned out to be false, but by then the damage had been done in influencing public thought. In several instances Lindy's responses in interviews were rearranged so they sounded different, and it is this blatant misuse of information that gives truth and journalism a bad name (http://www.lindychamberlain.com/). It is inevitable that when something happens outside our normal range of understanding, in absence of knowledge, we will accept the first explanation. From that point on, we will subconsciously, and continually, interpret all further information to agree with our first conclusion (this can be said for journalists and the public- this is why it's so important to attempt to tell the truth as accurately as possible).
So clearly the truth is slippery and while journalists may seem to have inadequate tools and time to fact-check etc, they must continue to practice the essential skills needed for presenting a credible description. Inaccurate reporting is often due to laziness, bad ethics, or time pressures, but journalists need to do what they can to overcome this. Ultimately most journalists would feel they are representing the truth, however this is different to deliberately fabricating a story, we need to maintain respect for the truth seeking process or else we will be faced with nothing but gossip and hearsay.
As chapter 7 outlines, a decrease in staff numbers, article length and context have all effected the reliability of info, but as discussed, stories can more accurately reveal truth if they are developed in three stages- reactive, analytical and reflective reporting. I have found examples of these notions in news stories surrounding the September 11 attacks.
This first story is from the BBC and is reactive, reporting what happened, observed facts etc. So what actually happened when the planes struck. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/11/newsid_2514000/2514627.stm
The second story is from the ABC and it is more analytical reporting, answering some of the deeper questions about how, or why the event happened. This story examines how authorities ignored warnings that the September 11 attacks might occur. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/02/11/1300618.htm
This story functions on the level of reflective reporting, examining deeper social trends that allowed the event to occur. This piece examines the role of democracy in the attacks and the influence of democracy in the Middle Eastern countries (those the USA attempted to influence) after September 11. http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/pmg/start.html
Overall I think the important point to remember is that we must continually do a reality check; read and write always with the question of 'What is not being said? What is just below the surface? Could this have happened any other way than what is said?'
- Can anyone think of a time where the truth has been distorted?
- How about where the truth has been actively pursued?
http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000728.html There is another interesting example regarding truth on this blog.
Or for more info have a look at the book- Journalism- Truth or Dare, by Ian Hargreaves.
1 comment:
Hi Rachel,
Chapter 16 in Conley & Lamble's 'The Daily Miracle' provides a good read in relation to your question 'can anyone think of a time when truth was distorted?' Jayson Blair was a journalist for the New York Times and in 2003 it was revealed that he had been plagiarising stories and faking interviews for several years. He had also selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not. Dodgy or what?
Post a Comment