Jillian Hartmann
jh093110@ohio.edu
You hear it all the time: reporters striving to be fair and balanced. Besides reporting the truth, journalists have to enter every news story with no bias, no opinion and little to no emotion. It's part of the job but sometimes that line is crossed of objectivity. Objectivity means that when covering the news, reporters can't convey on their own feelings, prejudices or bias in their stories. They avoid characterizing people or institutions in a good or bad light. The news is not advertising; it's strictly meant to expose the truth to the audience.
But sometimes it's difficult to be completely objective if your audience is being subjective. The news is for the people, so the news tends to give the people what they want to increase their ratings. Isn't that being somewhat objective? Not entirely because as journalists we want to inform the public that we are relaying the truth of the news surrounding them. In Pittsburgh, for example, news about UPMC letting go some of their workers is important for the people in that area, but not for anyone living in Miami, Fla. But let's think nationally.
You hear it all the time: reporters striving to be fair and balanced. Besides reporting the truth, journalists have to enter every news story with no bias, no opinion and little to no emotion. It's part of the job but sometimes that line is crossed of objectivity. Objectivity means that when covering the news, reporters can't convey on their own feelings, prejudices or bias in their stories. They avoid characterizing people or institutions in a good or bad light. The news is not advertising; it's strictly meant to expose the truth to the audience.
But sometimes it's difficult to be completely objective if your audience is being subjective. The news is for the people, so the news tends to give the people what they want to increase their ratings. Isn't that being somewhat objective? Not entirely because as journalists we want to inform the public that we are relaying the truth of the news surrounding them. In Pittsburgh, for example, news about UPMC letting go some of their workers is important for the people in that area, but not for anyone living in Miami, Fla. But let's think nationally.
 |
| Twin Towers on 9/11. Photo Cred:prepper-sources.com |
Sept. 11 was a tragic day, and many
controversies resulted after the attack. On March 6, President Bush held a press
conference, in which he proposed his reasons for going to war. He mentioned al-Qaeda or the attacks of Sept. 11 fourteen times in 52 minutes. No
one questioned him on it, despite the fact that the CIA had questioned the
Iraq/al-Qaeda connection, and that there has never been solid evidence presented
to support the idea that Iraq was involved in the attacks.
Reporters were being objective. Obviously we want there to be justice for what happened on Sept. 11. We will agree to any lead we believe to be a step in the right direction. This is a situation where people died due to terrorism, an attack on our country. People want to blame someone and make them pay for it. So when President Bush mentioned al-Qaeda in his speech, no one questioned him because everyone wanted to end this and find closure.
The media didn't pick the president apart at all on where he got his information or how it was presented. Everyone agreed with the president due to the situation that was presented. After so many people had died on 9/11, it was time for the people to punish the master minds behind the tragedy. The president could have simply named anyone in the Middle East and everyone would have shook their heads yes. The reporters didn't really question the president during the press conference because they wanted someone to blame; they wanted to report the news that hope is here.
With Sept. 11 being one of most tragic events to occur in our nation's history, it's difficult to remove yourself as a human to become an emotionless reporter. It's an event where reporters on the air were breaking down due to what happened. I can't say I'm against how the reporters felt when the president was mentioning al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, but as a journalist you have a job for retrieving the whole truth. It doesn't hurt to find information that only supports the fact that al-Qaeda was behind the attack or question the president on his facts.
Who likes being taxed? No one. When President Bush trying to propose his $726 billion tax cut, hundreds of articles and broadcasts picked it over. Now, what is the difference between these two proposals?
Let's say the president wants to tax you for economic reasons to better our country. Wait? That's money out of my pocket. I disagree. Why is everyone not standing behind the president now? Well, it's because it's a negative proposal. To find the people who were behind 9/11 was the No. 1 positive goal everyone wanted to achieve.
People are subbjective to the news they are given and sometimes, unfortunately, reporters are as well. This shows that when the people question the truth, the reporters do also. This tax proposal was questioned everywhere by everyone because no one wants the government taking more money away from them.
Journalists have the opportunities to make a controversial uproar. It's the power we have as reporters. If we don't make it a big deal, then most likely it won't be. If we agree with the president's proposal on al-Qaeda being behind 9/11, everyone else with follow. We have the power, but we can't use it to our advantage. As journalists we are the messengers, not the creators.
Reporters were being objective. Obviously we want there to be justice for what happened on Sept. 11. We will agree to any lead we believe to be a step in the right direction. This is a situation where people died due to terrorism, an attack on our country. People want to blame someone and make them pay for it. So when President Bush mentioned al-Qaeda in his speech, no one questioned him because everyone wanted to end this and find closure.
The media didn't pick the president apart at all on where he got his information or how it was presented. Everyone agreed with the president due to the situation that was presented. After so many people had died on 9/11, it was time for the people to punish the master minds behind the tragedy. The president could have simply named anyone in the Middle East and everyone would have shook their heads yes. The reporters didn't really question the president during the press conference because they wanted someone to blame; they wanted to report the news that hope is here.
With Sept. 11 being one of most tragic events to occur in our nation's history, it's difficult to remove yourself as a human to become an emotionless reporter. It's an event where reporters on the air were breaking down due to what happened. I can't say I'm against how the reporters felt when the president was mentioning al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, but as a journalist you have a job for retrieving the whole truth. It doesn't hurt to find information that only supports the fact that al-Qaeda was behind the attack or question the president on his facts.
 |
| The first sign of hope. Photo Cred:chicagonow.com |
This is a link to the press conference President Bush gave on 9/11.
Who likes being taxed? No one. When President Bush trying to propose his $726 billion tax cut, hundreds of articles and broadcasts picked it over. Now, what is the difference between these two proposals?
Let's say the president wants to tax you for economic reasons to better our country. Wait? That's money out of my pocket. I disagree. Why is everyone not standing behind the president now? Well, it's because it's a negative proposal. To find the people who were behind 9/11 was the No. 1 positive goal everyone wanted to achieve.
People are subbjective to the news they are given and sometimes, unfortunately, reporters are as well. This shows that when the people question the truth, the reporters do also. This tax proposal was questioned everywhere by everyone because no one wants the government taking more money away from them.
Journalists have the opportunities to make a controversial uproar. It's the power we have as reporters. If we don't make it a big deal, then most likely it won't be. If we agree with the president's proposal on al-Qaeda being behind 9/11, everyone else with follow. We have the power, but we can't use it to our advantage. As journalists we are the messengers, not the creators.
No comments:
Post a Comment