The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.
That is, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right,
and having a system in place to fact-test information as we discover it.
Verification
is what separates journalism from other forms of communication.
Entertainment focuses on what is most diverting. Propaganda selects or
invents facts to persuade and manipulate. Fiction invents scenarios. Art
is based on creating and expressing impressions. Journalism is focused
on getting what happened down right.
The meaning of objectivity has been lost.
Originally, it was an appeal for journalists to develop a consistent
method of testing information, like the reliance on functional truth
that we discussed earlier, so that the personal and cultural biases of
reporters would not undermine the accuracy of work.
Objectivity
is a device to persuade the audience of one's accuracy and fairness.
And journalism and science come from the same intellectual roots. In the
same way a scientist comes up with a theory and then runs experiments
to prove or disprove the theory, a journalist starts out with a
presumption, and then find facts (via documents, witness statements,
ect.) to find what is rooted in fact, and what is not.
The "science of reporting" is known as the Objective Method.
There are several key points to the method. First, never add anything
that wasn't there. Don't invent things, rearrange events in time or
place or modify or combine people or events. Your writing can arrange
events based on news value, but be sure to make it clear that it's out
of sequence.
Second, never deceive the audience.
Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism
is committed to truthfulness. If you vary from the most literal form of
eyewitness reporting, let your audience know or don't do it.
Third,
be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives. Be as
open and honest with audiences about what you know and what you don't.
Acknowledge obvious questions your stories are not answering. Ask
yourself, what does the reader need to know to evaluate this information
for themselves? Also ask yourself, is there anything in your treatment
of a story that requires explanation of why you did something of left
something out?
Doing so shows respect for your audience. It also helps establish credibility through the expressed public interest motive.
Fourth, clearly identify sources -- both individuals and documents -- and explain any anonymous sourcing.
The problem with the science of reporting is, there is no single standard for verification.
Doctors and scientists have rigorous standards based on natural law.
For example, if you're doing an experiment on freezing water, water will
freeze at 32 degrees, no matter what.
But media, by
nature, is more subjective and interpretive. For example, how much proof
is enough proof? It's situational and argumentative.
Society as a whole may not agree on a single truth. Think
of the abortion debate: different groups have different truths. If
you're pro-abortion, it's a right enshrined in law. If you're
anti-abortion, it's sanctioned murder. In such instances, the public
sphere becomes one of argument, and not agreement on what is truth.
Fairness
and balance can also be interpreted differently. So instead of striving
to define such terms, it's better to use techniques to help guide
journalists in developing and verifying their work. As we noted earlier,
balance can lead to distortion.
So, fairness should
mean you are being fair to the facts and the audience's understanding of
the facts, and not to a particular source or that your story is
balanced in a distorted way. When you try to determine accuracy based on
fact-testing, that is journalism. If all you're doing is getting one
side and then the other, then you're simply enabling an argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment