Truth and Objectivity in News Reporting

When writing news reports, it is a journalist’s job to tell the facts in a truthful and objective way.  According to Tickle, "the preamble of the Australian Journalists Association section of the MEAA Code of Ethics opens with 'Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism.'  However, the fundamental principles of journalism are often forgotten in the 21st century.  This is because, according to Tickle, journalists face "time pressures, market forces, law, work culture and practices."  Within this, comes the fact that news values, or what is in the public interest has disappeared and been replaced by news organisations attempting to produce the story first.  This has comes about because of the continual rise of the internet and citizen journalism.  In this instance, what we see in the news is interpreted in many different ways.  Some will see it as being truthful, while others will not.  Of course, journalists are still very important when it comes to reporting events, but they are not as trusted as they once were.

With this in mind, it is important to discuss what makes a good and trustworthy journalist.  Amabile and Tighe suggest that in order for a journalist to succeed, they must have a level of expertise in the domain.   This includes, “basic intelligence for doing work in the domain, as well as knowledge acquired through formal and informal education.”  A journalist must know the field before they enter it, because they must have the necessary skills, including how to conduct interviews as well as being able to write for each form of news media.  Robert H. Giles and Robert W. Snyder believe that the journalists “will be more formally educated and more inclined to be independent thinkers who cannot be easily duped or manipulated” in the future Journalists with strong analytical skills will be better able to uncover new facets to their stories, thus promoting independent and original thinking.  According to Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi and Damon, a managing editor who trains many young reporters told them that every good journalist must develop “a method of systematically talking to everyone about something, and going back and going back, building for knowledge… figuring out what other people say happened, checking and cross-checking, absorbing others’ motivations and putting it together in stories.”  This therefore points to the fact that the only way to have truth and objectivity in the media is for journalists to be trained to do so.

In addition to this point, according to Bowman and McIlwaine, suggest that there are several phases of story development.  "Each stage requires a different focus from journalists seeking to provide a truly comprehensive coverage."  This includes the research and interviewing stage.  As Bowman and McIlwaine state, "this theorisation allows journalists more readily to access the type of enquiry that is needed, and in turn, the sorts of interview questions that are appropriate."  Essentially, there may be a number of stories from the original topic.

The second stage is known as analytical reporting.  This is where journalists look for the answers to the how and why.  They ask the institutions and authorities involved in the event.  In this stage, journalists want to know who was responsible, who is to blame, or praise for their actions.  In the Melbourne Storm scandal, journalists uncovered that the former CEO, Brian Waldron and fellow executives were involved.  All of this can be seen to be in the public interest, as the Storm of a sporting team that is always in the public spotlight.
Finally, the third stage is that of reflective reporting.  Here, journalists dig deeper and look for the negligence of officials involved.  With the Melbourne Storm, it immediately became apparent that the executives were attempting to keep all of their players at the club.  This can also be said to be a broader social trend, as Rugby League clubs are always attempting to keep their star players.  However, it is impossible to do so because of the salary cap.  Also, within this stage, those involved were forced to resign from their positions.  
Another interesting point is the fact that there is evidence to suggest that news organisations are influenced by news agencies.  According to Nick Davies, this happened when "BBC News 24 on 21st November, 2005 ran a story about the Ministry of Defence agreeing to pay five million pounds compensation to the family of a banker who had died landing his private plane after an RAFF helicopter flew onto the runway."  Apparently, the story had already appeared on the BBC's website three days earlier.  It had been filed by Strand News.  The fact that Press Associates did not publish the story beforehand stopped the channel from reporting on it earlier.  In this instance, it can be said that information is copied by other agencies, and thus, may not be truthful and objective.

Propaganda also becomes an issue in the media, as doctored, faked and/or manipulated material has begun to hit the news bulletins.  It is all about getting viewers and provoking emotions.  Once the news is proven to be false, the general public loses more faith in journalism.The first stage of enquiry is that the event is happening, or reactive reporting.  This is where the journalist reports on the events and observed facts connected to the event.  These may be a combination of lives lost, property damaged, times and places.   In this stage, the information is provided by people, whether they be media conferences, or documents.  An example of this is the recent Melbourne Storm salary scandal.  The journalists involved in breaking the story were able to report on the allegations of how much they were over the salary cap, as well as obtain information about how long it had been occurring and those who were allegedly involved.  They were also able to obtain information from the NRL on the punishment handed down (stripping of their minor premierships and premierships during the years, all points they had earned being stripped, as well as the team not being able to acquire points.) 

Five documentaries, entitled Pallywood, which clearly shows a fierce battle between the Palestinians and Israelis is one such example.  There are numerous casualties, including a man who is hit in the leg.

In this instance, an ambulance quickly pulls up.  However, it does not pull up right in front of the injured man.  Instead, the man is dragged back to the ambulance, where he is loaded onto a stretcher (on his right leg).  There are no cries of agony from the man, suggesting that the whole scene has been staged.  There are also many other such scenes, meaning propaganda is destroying journalism in that it is not truthful and objective anymore.

With all of this in mind, it is clear to see that journalism has to quickly address this issue if it wants to return to be a trusted profession.

Public Vs Private Interest

According to the BBC, “there is no single definition of public interest.” Rather, the types of stories that fall into this category are, “exposing or detecting crime, exposing significantly anti-social behaviour and exposing corruption, or injustice” just to name a few. This categorisation raises the question of whether there is a difference between the respect for privacy owed to public figures, and that owed to private people. For public figures, the argument surrounds whether or not there is an entitlement to privacy, as well as whether the loss of privacy serves the public interest. For private people, the argument is simply based around whether or not the press should report their stories. If this categorisation is the accepted basis for determining the boundary for public versus private interest, there is no discernible difference between the respect for privacy owed to public figures and that owed to private people.

When it comes to reporting stories, it is a journalist’s role “to let people know what is going on in the world around them, so that they can make their own decisions about what to think, do, or say.” However, the major problem that arises is the potential for conflict between the public’s right to know and the individual’s right to privacy. This is despite, as Andrew Belsey points out in his article, “Privacy, publicity and politics” “Clearly, we live in a society that values personal privacy, and is concerned about intrusions into privacy from whatever source, including the media.” Belsey’s statement is an interesting one, because of the notion that a person is only in the public eye while they are in public places. However, this argument falls down when it comes to public figures, including politicians and celebrities. As David Archard points out in his article “Privacy, the public interest and a prurient public” it is the belief of Warren and Brandes, who wrote an article containing the disability of a congressman, “that somebody who enters public life thereby rightly loses a right to privacy.” Archard also brings in the notion that, “to become a public person is to undergo a change in one’s status, associated with which is a lesser degree of privacy.” However, he is against this notion because of the underlying concept that, although public figures only complain when the publicity is bad, a breach of privacy has occurred. On the other side of the argument is Belsey, who states that “we live in a society that thrives on publicity.” An example of this is Senator Bob Woods, who along with his wife, was photographed, using a long lens camera, in the backyard of their Sydney home. This photo sparked a huge debate as to whether the photo was in the public interest. Sally White, co-author of the book “Ethics and The Australian News Media”, believed it was not. She states on “The Media Report, “I am not totally convinced that taking a photograph without the subjects consent, when in fact the photograph does not contribute to anything other than voyeurism really, a picture of a husband and his wife. And, I don’t really think that it adds anything to the public’s right to know.” On the other side of this argument, is Barry Porter, who at the time was the Deputy National President of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. He states on “The Media Report,” that the photo, “adds a human dimension to the whole business. The Senator and his wife at home, and here are the people whose names are in the copy alongside the picture. It adds to the story.” In other words, Porter does not believe that there was an invasion of privacy. In addition, there is the argument that it is left to the editor to decide whether or not to run the story, which links back to the idea of there being no clear definition of public interest. In this context, it is arguable that the photograph may add to the public’s perception of a public figure. However, it is a subjective judgement which suggests that public figures are entitled to less privacy then private individuals. As the situation does not fit into any of the public interest categories, it is considered that the Woods’ privacy was inappropriately invaded.

The second argument surrounding the loss of privacy, deals with the fact that it serves the public interest. In this vein, Andrew Belsey states “the right to privacy is no more than a presumption, although an important one.” What Belsey means, is that claiming a justifiable reason for invasion of privacy does not exist. Thus, in terms of Senator Bob Woods, the fact that his extra marital affair was exposed in the press was not an invasion of privacy, because as Belsey states, “scandalous behaviour of this nature cannot legitimately claim the protection of privacy.” This is because of the notion that public figures make important decisions about the way in which we live. However, the question still arises as to whether the public needs to know about such an affair. David Archard, on the other hand, believes that the information does not serve the public interest, unless a crime has been committed. However, despite this, there are reasons as to why it is believed to be in the public interest. The first of these, as Archard states, is that “any kind of private immorality disqualifies a person from public office.” In this instance, the public believe that a politician is not fit to be a Minister, because of the fact that he or she needs an untarnished character. However, as Archard believes, this is taking matters too far as nobody is perfect and nobody should have to be absolutely perfect. The second example he puts forward, is the notion of hypocrisy, whether it be family, or other political matters. One example of this is the controversy surrounding the release of Cheryl Kernot’s book, “Speaking For Myself Again,” in which, Kernot explains everything about her defection to the ALP, except for the fact that she was having an affair with Gareth Evans, according to senior political editor for Channel 9, Laurie Oaks, in his Bulletin article, entitled, “Secrets and Lies.” Oaks eventually broke his accusation on “A Current Affair” in 2002, because he believed that the affair was an essential part of her career, which Kernot left out of her book. In his article, he states, “an honest book would have included Kernot’s biggest secret.” This therefore, begs the question of what is actually in the public interest. As Kernot explained on “The Media Report” in 2002, “I haven’t left out anything that’s important to the reasons why I joined the Labor Party and the consequences thereafter.” Kernot’s argument is a particularly important one, because again, revelation of the fact that she had an affair does not serve the public interest. Once again, the decision of Laurie Oaks is a subjective one, based on a presumption that the public would have an improved perception of Cheryl Kernot, through knowledge of the affair.

On the other side of those in the public eye, are those who, against their will, have found themselves in the spotlight. This includes both the families of those in the public eye, and those who have become public figures as a result of being a survivor of a disaster, or the winner of the lottery. As a result, there is a huge debate as to whether or not their stories should be made public. Andrew Belsey believes that they should. He states, “to the extent that the events that these members are involved in, there is no reason why the press should not seek to report them.” He also states that, “the circulation of general-interest information is a reasonable and legitimate activity of the media.” Belsey’s point of view is worth taking into account, as there are definitely stories that fit into the mould of public interest. For example, the remarkable landing of a plane by “Sully” Sullenberger in the Hudson River earlier this year without a single fatality after the plane he was flying was struck by birds,. However, in the same vein, there is an argument as to whether the media should report on tragic events. An example of this is the Virginia Tech shootings. Washington and Lee journalism Professor Edward Wasserman believes that after these incidents, the media should keep out. This is because he believes that the media, by reporting on the issue, could make it harder for the relatives to recover. Wasserman’s view is certainly an interesting one, as the reporting of tragic incidents could indeed slow down the recovery time as continual publicity could affect the perception of a community throughout the rest of the world. It is the argument of whether or not the media can intrude into the grief of relatives. In these instances, it is more the case that the public will be interested rather than it being in the public interest. The privacy of individuals is invaded, as a consequence.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oz2CZgrm8k ) This video provides an interesting aspect of what the FBI is claiming they need in order to make sure terrorist attacks like 9/11 don't happen again.  The powers they want are an invasion of privacy.

The rise of Social Networking: Journalism in the 21st Century

In the 21st Century, a journalist certainly has to be able to produce content for a number of different mediums.  This includes, print, radio, television as well as online.  Some even have to perform roles for all four platforms, which Stephen Quinn and Stephen Lamble, refer to as "Platypus" or "Inspector Gadget" journalism, in that it is impossible for a journalist to be able to report well across the four platforms because of tight deadlines.  In addition, Quinn and Lamble state, "the more stories a reporter has to do, the more likely they will miss a deadline or fudge a story."  This results in the journalist "repeating themselves, and failing to take advantage of the benefits of convergence, which is the ability to tell a story using the most appropriate medium."  In addition, the rise of the internet and social networking has made instant news a necessity.

Although this is the case, one of the interesting arguments on the rise of social networking and the way in which it is influencing journalism in the 21st Century, is that without old media, it would not be possible to be able to produce news online.  The consistent development of the new media via new technology for use in a new media age has a number of critics who “express concern about growing economic inequalities, jobs lost to technology and mechanisation, new forms of state and corporate surveillance, and a surfeit of “information” that is unable to be effectively assimilated by its users, since it is devoid of meaning and context.” For example, Stephen Hume, a columnist for the “Vancouver Sun” claims that the old media is the new media. His claims are that old media utilises new technology, in which he uses the newspaper’s own website to prove this point by saying, “the Vancouver Sun’s website generated 10 million page views in February-more than 357,000 a day.“ This is only slightly less than the 500,000 hits per month on the newspaper’s blogs. Hume states that blogs are, “a vital tool to gather and distribute content.“ This means that new technology is used as a tool rather than an end. It also means that newspapers will remain viable.

Of course, new media advocates, who "point to the possibility of a new age of increased personal freedom, reduced social hierarchy, enhanced possibilities for leisure, and a greater quality of social interaction and communication resulting from new media technologies.” Take for instance, Al Gore, who since losing the 2000 American Election has become one of the most well known advocates of new media. In becoming an advocate for new media, Gore has set up a TV channel and a website known as “Current” that relies heavily on information from citizen journalists. It is currently in operation in the United States, Britain, Italy and Ireland. Expansion to Canada is on the cards as well. Gore stated, “By creating a cable network that works in concert with our online community, Current is facilitating a global conversation with our young adult audience.” In Gore’s view, new media is being used to change human culture. This is because it is being used as a global conversation, which allows a number of different people in different parts of the world to have a discussion about an issue which is affecting them. The issue is made international by the interactive website.

This is also known as multimedia reporting, which Quinn and Lamble refer to as "involving new approaches to newsgathering and new ways to tell stories using text, audio, video and graphics."  It increases the life span of a story, which according to Jane Stevens, teacher of multimedia journalism at the University of California at Berkley is  a "very different form of storytelling" because of its interactive nature, something I mentioned above.  "It's a two-way communication system: people can search for information.  They send their own text, photos, graphics, video clips and audio to comment on stories, or provide additional information."  This is what is known as citizen journalism, which I spoke about in an earlier blog.  Citizen journalism, as has been noticed, has plenty of advantages in that news that would not otherwise have been able to be produced has in fact been produced.  For example, images from the carriages of the trains and the bus involved in the London Bombings.  However, it also has negatives, including the fact that citizen journalists are watching every other citizen, looking for a reason to film a neighbour or colleague in a wrongful act.  In addition, it is quite possible that the information produced in a blog, or on a social networking site, for example Twitter, may not be correct.

In addition to what has been mentioned above, it is important to note that social networking and the rise of the internet will not kill off traditional journalism.  Instead, it will strengthen it.  For Example, Quinn and Lamble point to the fact that blogs help a journalist to perform their role.  This is especially the case with RSS, which "helps you find useful information."  The advantage of using RSS is that "you can have news constantly fed to you instead of searching for it."  Information is thus what you want to receive, rather than it being given to you.  This video explains why the use of Twitter is so important to journalism, and especially in countries, for example India.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzyt7V_ZgRo&feature=related

Finally, for the time being, there is a place for traditional news reporting and social networking, or the rise of new technology.  This is because they compliment each other, and are intertwined.  They are only fully realised through this integration.  This video is a further explanation of how old and new media can work together.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLAJg7-sqXc&feature=related.

.

Globalisation Vs Localisation

Globalisation is defined as being "growth to a global or worldwide scale," while localisation is defined as being "made local or oriented locally." With the rise of the internet and other forms of new technology, the argument of whether globalisation is positively or negatively influencing the world of journalism and society as a whole has arisen. There is no doubt that the answer is both, as a result of different factors.

The term globalisation, or "global village" is not a new one. As Rhonda Breit states, "it was first used in the 1960s to describe the linking of humanity in all parts of the world." This was done by the use of the printing press, radio, the invention of the television and telephones. This technology has since evolved into mobile phones and satellites, which according to Breit has "helped to break down borders to create a global media audience." The invention of the internet to the general public has sped up the process, and through its use, news can now reach citizens in a far off country. It is this process which makes it instantaneous, and it is one of the advantages of globalisation.

According to Michael D. Intriligator, Professor of Economics, Political Science, and Policy Studies at UCLA, "globalization has involved greater openness in the international economy, an integration of markets on a worldwide basis, and a movement toward a borderless world, all of which have led to increases in global flows." Globalisation has helped to shape economies in that transportation and communication is cheaper. It is now possible to send information through to the other side of the world at any time and receive a reply almost instantly. For more information on what Intriligator believes are the advantages of globalisation, visit www.sppsr.ucla.edu/cgpr/docs/workingpaper2.doc. He is not the only one who suggests advantages of globalisation though, as E.A. Eregarr and A.O. Afolabii use six examples. The first of these is rise in the volume of global market, which means there will always be an increase in trade regardless of the product. The second one is increase in competition, which provides more choices and lower prices. The third example relates to cultural diversity, which means the products will be available to everybody. Example number four is job creation and poverty eradication. This means that more events will take place, and thus more jobs will be created. Example number five is a check on bad government, in which foreign media outlets can criticise governments and end their reign. Finally, the pair suggests that globalisation can aid development, as there is instant access to local media coverage of activities.

Globalisation has also culminated in the deregulation of media institutions across the world. This has especially taken place in Nigeria, which since 1992 has not been in the hands of the government. Now, everybody who is willing to participate in the media can do so.

However, globalisation also has many negative effects. According to Breit, "the latest technological advances have taken place in an environment of commercialisation." This has seen the rise of 10 transnational corporations as well as a second tier, which are buying into the new technology, and thus limiting freedom of speech. As a result, this is having a huge influence on journalism. As we all know, newspapers set the agenda, but this is now going one step further, as Breit states, "media operators and others in the industry are setting the news agenda , as journalists put commercial interests before the public's right to know, traditionally seen as the motivation to break stories." Newspapers in the 21st Century are a business, where money is important to their survival. Journalists in this environment thus have the added pressure of deciding whether the information is in the public interest. It can also culminate in defamation cases being herd in a country where the article has not been published. An example of this is, Dow Jones & Company Inc Vs Joseph Gutnick (2002 at 25) where Joseph Gutnick sued Dow Jones for comments that were placed on the internet. Also, globalisation is effecting culture as a whole, especially Nigeria, where Nigeria films, T V and Records portray the dominant America culture. According to Eregarr and Afolabii, "this could be traced to factors like lack of funds to produce programs, proliferation of Hollywood culture, and dependency on foreign News Agencies of developed countries." It is a problem that faces a lot of third world countries, and thus is a huge negative of globalisation.

Overall though, there is no doubt that globalisation is having a positive effect on society. This is because more information is available than ever before. Thus, the idea of globalisation is not killing off localisation. Rather, it is strengthening it.