hh157115@ohio.edu
Today, more than ever before, journalists are being asked to uphold standards of truth, transparency and objectivity. These morals are challenged every day with notions of fake news, calling the media "the enemy of the people", and more. And with the rise of the Internet, journalists are now having to take those standards and apply them in a fast-paced, technology-based world without being called liars and deceivers.
So is it possible for journalism to be completely truthful and bias-free? Theoretically, yes. But does it work like that in day-to-day life? Not quite.
An article from WGBH argues that news organizations have the right to enforce social media rules for its content creators, stating that, "Providing tough, fair-minded coverage is a discipline that is undermined once you disclose your own biases. It's not just that your audience's view of your work changes; it's that you change too."
A key factor that all successful (and respected) journalists have in common is that they are relied on for neutral and accurate coverage of politics. Once that reliability is lost, you’re toast. We discussed in class about journalists throughout history that are now talked about for their lies rather than their major accomplishments: Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and the like. These people's reputations have been tarnished because they either lied, cut corners, or forgot to fact-check.
A scene from a movie on Stephen Glass's ethical stunt, Shattered Glass, exposes the moment Glass's lies came to surface.
So is it possible for journalism to be completely truthful and bias-free? Theoretically, yes. But does it work like that in day-to-day life? Not quite.
An article from WGBH argues that news organizations have the right to enforce social media rules for its content creators, stating that, "Providing tough, fair-minded coverage is a discipline that is undermined once you disclose your own biases. It's not just that your audience's view of your work changes; it's that you change too."
A key factor that all successful (and respected) journalists have in common is that they are relied on for neutral and accurate coverage of politics. Once that reliability is lost, you’re toast. We discussed in class about journalists throughout history that are now talked about for their lies rather than their major accomplishments: Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and the like. These people's reputations have been tarnished because they either lied, cut corners, or forgot to fact-check.
A scene from a movie on Stephen Glass's ethical stunt, Shattered Glass, exposes the moment Glass's lies came to surface.
More often than not, those who commit these offenses tend to overshadow the good work done by honest and diligent journalists who make objectivity their lifeblood.
Yet Matt Taibbi claims in a New York Times article that objective journalism is an illusion. He says that, “Opinion can’t be extracted from reporting. The only question is whether or not it’s hidden.”
Which ties into to the notion of bias in political media.
A major argument that I see thanks to today’s political climate is the pitting of Democrat and Republican media consumers against each other due to each other’s “bias.” While it is true that many media outlets may have an inherent bias, the bias is not put there to do harm to the opposing side.
 |
| Source: Pew Research Center |
With the advancement of technology and the Internet, we can customize our news sources to hear what we want to hear— not what's being spewed out of a general entertainment source. Critics argue that this tailoring tends to narrow people's worldview, making them even more biased. In my opinion, the customization of news isn't harming others because of its bias, but enlightening them.
So whose reporting is trustworthy with these tailored news sources? It's likely based on familiarity.
Taibbi opened his last paragraph in the Times article with this: “We live in a society now where people want to know who a journalist is before they decide whether or not to believe his or her reporting.” And that, to me, speaks volumes.
 |
| Source: Pew Research Center |
According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of people trust their local news sources because they are familiar. They know the same people you know, they live in the same area you do, they are affected by the same things you are. So why not get to know more about someone before you believe what they say?
At the end of the day, bias is going to exist no matter what. We can keep it out of our essays and articles as much as we want, but it’s an inevitable human element. The opinions of others matter in this global world we live in today. Different points of view are great tools to have in any conversation because they open up avenues for problem-solving, empathy and overall communication. As long as the bias is not obstructing any truthful facts, then it is harmless.
No comments:
Post a Comment