The practice of neutrality: When can it be negative?

 Maxwell Abbatiello

ma281019@ohio.edu

Image via Varsity

A common form of practice that journalists utilize consistently is remaining neutral or providing both viewpoints of a topic. However, the public's growing skepticism over time has also pressured journalists to be cautious so as not to come off as biased. While the thought of providing a voice for all sides of a story sounds appealing, it has been damaging. Neutrality has given strength to arguments that are just straight-up false and turn out to be a disservice to the public. 

The priority journalists are responsible for is publishing the truth. Giving a platform for factually untrue arguments - such as the flat earth conspiracy - is unhealthy and takes away from the reputation of news. With all political beliefs aside, I feel it is fair to say President Trump was not a fan of "the media." His massive influence has undeniably influenced public opinion on news publications. He was quick to sue publications and bash them during press conferences and public appearances whenever news came out with a story that could damage his reputation. News media has made sure to take both sides when talking about subjects about him, with the capitol hill riot being a good example. 

Climate change has been turned into a debate due to journalists providing neutral coverage on the topic, even though scientists worldwide have been saying that the world is undeniably getting warmer. However, news coverage on TV will hold debates where one person argues that there is global warming and one person denies its existence. This method is not proportional and provides a platform for lies. Neutrality, in this case, is very harmful.

Cultural differences, such as the values and beliefs other countries practice, should be considered. When reporting on an article that spans internationally, it is essential to remain aware of the countries' values and beliefs the journalist is reporting on and be aware of any conflicts between them and the U.S. In cases like these, it is hard to remain neutral, and doing so could cause an increase in tension between the countries.

Neutral reportage is harmful to the public and can lead to highly harmful ideas. As long as journalists stick to the truth and their ethics, this problem will fix itself. The answer is to not give in to fear of backlash and report honest newsworthy stories.

Public opinion of journalism will be its end: a warning and a promise

By Ethan Bloomfield 

eb348519@ohio.edu

Image by Allsides

How often has your Dad or Grandpa told you that journalism isn't what it used to be, lamenting the "good ol' days" of Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings? How often have government officials criticized news media and perverted by political grifters for the world to see? Unfortunately, a damaging aspect of this rhetoric runs far more profound than any given president thinks - the people's perception of news media - an outlet to keep the people informed - has plummeted to an unprecedented level of distrust in the last five years. The statistics don't lie: a Poynter analysis in June 2021 found that only 29% of surveyed Americans trust the news, which is two percentage points lower than Taiwan and a whopping 16 percentage points lower than Canada. This fact is not only a profoundly alarming number, but a number that tells the story journalists may not want to tell - that the country is turning against the news. 

It is not by mistake, however. The news and its trustworthiness have been vilified by talking heads, religious and political leaders, and government officials in a way never seen before over the last five years. This nostalgia for news of years long gone is not without merit, either - the 24-hour news cycle, rampant partisanship among newsmakers and news-watchers, and the ongoing and endlessly tiring COVID-19 pandemic have soured many to the importance of news in 2022. This belief led many over the years to rebel against the media establishment and either partake in increasingly polarized content or reject news media. People favor uninformed and unregulated social media like Facebook for news, regardless of known harm caused to the overall trust in media and government in the first place.

This mistrust has seeped into the hearts and minds of many Americans. "The media is biased," some might say, unaware that bias and reporting on conscience is a part of journalism. Bias is unavoidable, and objectivity is not always the right way. In The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write that "the method is objective, not the journalist." This philosophy should permeate what journalism is to highlight the human limits of objectivity. Yet, as journalists, we are held to some impossible standard to give "all sides a chance" and report "neutral, unbiased content" by the people we serve. As a journalism student, I am privy to this insider knowledge on bias and objectivity in an acute fashion. The facts are that, through misinformation, ignorance, or otherwise, people don't have a collective understanding of how journalism works. The American Press Institute in 2018 presented a number of statistics highlighting how journalists are overwhelmingly skeptical of the public's knowledge of crucial journalism terms like "source," "attribution," or "op-ed." Additionally, the piece highlights a group's dissonance for terms like "fake news," unable to agree upon what the phrase even means. 

As journalists of the present and future, it is our moral and ethical responsibility to be more explicit, level-headed, and above all, transparent. We owe it to the people to explain the technicalities of complex journalistic concepts, be upfront about bias and show that bias is not a dirty word in journalism, and gain the American people's trust once again. If not, the future of journalism as we know it will be in peril - because it already is. 

Stirring the pot: What qualifies one to be considered a journalist?

 Silver Barker

sb230419@ohio.edu

Image by Clipart

The controversial question that remains a troubling topic for many in today's world is the essential principles needed to be a journalist. To even partially answer this question, people should first look at the term journalism and why we need it. Most of the general population would agree that journalism is meant to consistently inform our world of news we would not see or hear of in our personal day-to-day lives. We also rely on/expect someone with more authoritative power to act as the watchdog of these news events since we cannot scrutinize them due to external factors. 

According to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book The Elements of Journalism, "Journalism was for taking back the language from a government that had subverted it with propaganda that undermined freedom of thought itself." 

Nowadays, the spectrum for a journalist has become wide-ranged due to our world's advancement in technology. This wide variety can range from some stranger on social media retweeting or sharing content they find "newsworthy" with their followers to a professional in a newsroom publishing daily content. To differentiate journalists from others, many will consider whether the person publishing this content is ethical and responsible. However, even this definition of journalists is too broad to distinguish the good apples from the bad apples because now it leaves people with the question of what someone believes to be ethical and what is not. 

An excellent way to determine one's true intention behind publishing content is to look at how they contribute to society. As journalists, they have to report to the truth to prove their loyalty and earn/keep the people's trust. Unfortunately, the trust in journalists over the years has declined. Journalism should be viewed as another factor of democracy since it serves the public's interest. However, in 2011, 42 percent of the population felt the press hurt the democracy rather than helped it. The problem is that the political climate has had a severe outbreak due to social unrest that has silenced the voices of many journalists. A considerable part of this loyalty we require to earn the title journalist is not being afraid of speaking up and showing that a journalist's only obligation is to the people. 

The wide accessibility for most individuals to get on a platform and start pointing fingers can make it easy to blame at whose fault it is for certain events such as the raid of the capital. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of autocracy, stated: "We are losing our democracy day by day, and journalists are individually aware of this, but media outlets are not centering this as the story it should be." This is an excellent point because it shows that while some people will argue that it does not matter whether you balance what you cover to be titled a journalist. It seems here that democracy must survive. Some people fail to realize that entitling yourself to be a journalist means you have the power to gatekeep what you would like for your consumers to know. With this being said, an empowering voice that reports the truth and carries some diversity in what they share is a journalist that can likely increase the chances of gaining that trust back from citizens and saving a democracy that is slowly diminishing. 

We do not owe you both sides: How neutrality gives credibility to harmful viewpoints

Emme Bowe

eb730819@ohio.edu

Image by  John Cook

Since the popularization of the term "fake news" during the 2016 election, journalists have been under fire for showing bias in their writing and not executing their duty to defend the truth. Personal belief leaks through the writer's tone and framing of the article. One begins to wonder if they will ever know the whole story or if the public will constantly be fed one perspective that aligns with the individual who presents it. 

 

Journalists cannot be expected to be without bias, however, because they are humans who have personal feelings, values, and beliefs just like everyone else. In their book, The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach, and Tom Rosenstiel explain that objectivity does not mention the perspective journalists present but their information methodology. As long as the process of reporting is thorough, justified, and transparent, journalists can and should report their conscience. They do not need to be neutral or present multiple perspectives to be deemed trustworthy. In other words, journalists owe the public objectivity in their methodology but not neutrality in their position.

News organizations have made great strides by expressing concerns within our democracy after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. But unfortunately, articles forfeited the customary paragraph designated for alternate viewpoints. They did not share voices defending the insurrection because including this would skew the actual evaluation of the facts: that the event was a threat to democracy. 

Still, journalists who fear backlash for seeming biased will practice neutrality, giving credibility to another "side" even though that perspective does not hold the same integrity. While there are typically no ill-intentions behind neutral reporting, its ability to bring support to an argument that should not exist is partially to blame for polarization on issues that should be easily agreeable. 

Why are there still climate change deniers when 97 percent of climate scientists say it exists and humans are to blame? Would more of the public fight for federal action on climate change if journalists focused on scientific studies and excluded statements supported by fossil fuel industries? If journalists did not entertain the idea of a rigged election, would the Jan. 6 insurrection have been catastrophic? 

In an attempt to express unity and balance, journalists continually cause more harm and polarization through neutral reporting. It needs to stop. 

It is the responsibility of both journalists and the public to put an end to neutral reporting. Journalists' first obligation is the truth, their first loyalty is to citizens, and their obligation is to their conscience. To fulfill their duties to all parties, journalists must stand firm in the truth and not give way to improbable perspectives simply out of fear. It is also the responsibility of the public to recognize what is objective truth versus misinformation for the sake of balance. Trust and true objectivity can be restored when these two groups learn to monitor each other, critique shortcomings, and work together.  

The purpose of journalism: How can journalists save our democracy?

Katie Baneck

kb271219@ohio.edu

Illustration by Katie Baneck

Democracy and journalism go hand in hand. Democracy relies on the watchdog function of the press and the free flow of information that journalists provide. The press is a vital part of a democracy.

The political climate in the United States is increasingly polarized every day, and we can see the fuel behind that fire when we turn to certain media outlets. Yet, the future of our democracy relies on how journalists move forward. 

Journalist Margaret Sullivan from the Washington Post brought up an essential point in a piece she wrote about how democracy can survive in the United States. For democracy to begin to heal, journalists must start celebrating the heroes of our democracy. 

Often media outlets run stories about the 'villains of democracy' or stories about how our democracy is falling apart. To start healing our democracy, Sullivan pushes journalists to highlight democracy and the people fighting to save it.

Journalists can save our democracy by proving how truly unique democracy is. If journalists show that democracy is worth fighting for, our country will be in a much better place. 

Now all of that is great, but journalists have a lot of other things to fix to save our democracy. With the increasing amount of technology, anyone can create content that looks like news. So journalists have to distinguish themselves from the media. 

How can journalists do that? First, journalists must become more ethically sound and understand their sacred responsibility to the public. Journalists must understand that our democracy relies on their conscience and their honesty in their reporting. 

A journalist's role in our society has changed as technology has developed. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel describe the modernized role of journalists in their book, The Elements of Journalism. Journalists are no longer here to decide what news people read, but journalists are here to make sense of the news and explain what is authentic. Journalists also have to continue to serve as a watchdog and bring news to light that the public wouldn't see on their own. 

While in these roles, journalists must also understand how crucial it is to be transparent to the public. Trust in the media is very low, and journalists must strive to rebuild the relationship between journalism and the public.

One thing that journalists can do to repair this trust is to be as open about their role as possible. Journalists must share how they acquired the news and why it is essential to share with the public. In addition, journalists should be transparent about the biases or motives behind sharing the news. Journalists should also be ready to share corrections loudly if there is a mistake in reporting. 

To save our democracy, journalists need to understand their role and the importance of their words. Our democracy relies on trust in the media. For the United States to move forward to an era of stable democracy, the media can not be seen as the enemy by the public. Journalists are here to defend our country's democracy, not detract from it. . 

The 1619 Project: A Missed Opportunity by Lucas Morel

Aya Cathey

ac460519@ohio.edu

Extra Credit

Lucas Morel, 2020. Courtesy of the Abraham Lincoln Association

On Tuesday, the Menard Family George Washington Forum hosted a presentation at the Galbreath Chapel here at Ohio University. The speaker, Lucas Morel, is a professor of Politics and Washington and Lee University and the author of several books, including "Lincoln's Sacred Effort: Defining Religion's Role in American Self-Government" (2000) and "Lincoln and the American Founding" (2020).

The 1619 project was developed in 2019 by investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones and published in The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine. It commemorated the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in Virginia and intended to place Black Americans at the forefront of the nation's founding. In 2020, Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for her introductory essay. The 1619 project has sparked controversy and received criticism from journalists, political commentators, and historians such as Lucas Morel.

Morel believes the project had potential but fails to present an accurate account of American history because it portrays a "zero sum game instead of an integrated struggle." He continues on to explain that his greatest concern with the project is that it positions white contributions to history as "bad and ugly" and perpetuates the narrative that America was founded on white supremacy. 

Morel stated, "Her essay was political divisive in its presentation of American history as heroic black virtue trimuphing over persuasive white vice."

The one place where Hannah-Jones and Morel can agree is the importance of learning and passing down history. Where they disagree is which narrative to write from. Morel seems to view the Black perspective as a distortion, one that leaves out the "facts" and discounts for the hard work of the country's founders. Other historians have also agreed with his sentiment that pitting races against each other undermine civic trust. 

Overall, I did not enjoy this speaker, and I had several issues with his statements. He spoke about a need for equality over equity, and he seemed to favor the oppression of minority voices if it meant appeasing white people and traditional American systems. I didn't particularly appreciate when he said that Black Americans needed to understand that America's founding was exceptional because it minimizes centuries of abuse, torment, and literal enslavement. As a student journalist, it also upset me that he went after Hannah-Jones' character and not just her profession. As a Black woman, she has every right to tell the stories that matter to her culture; whether or not she "assembled facts" to promote an agenda, Morel was wrong in stating that her work was untrue and would make America "unloveable." 

All history should be shared from diverse perspectives, no matter how "ugly" it is. Slavery was a legal institution that has left a lasting legacy on our country. Morel suggested that to avoid catastrophe and build a successful nation, slavery had to persist as long as it did. And since the founders knew the practice was unjust and eventually outlawed it, their actions are excused. While I agree Hannah-Jones could have referenced more American historians in her project, Morel's presentation is far more opinionate and divisive than her work.

Lucas Morel's Perspective of The 1619 Project

 Jenna Hill 

jh875318@ohio.edu

(Extra Credit)

Lucas Morel is the head professor of politics at Washington and Lee University. He has been in this position for more than 2 decades now. Dr. Morel has a wide variety of experience in leadership positions. He has held positions such as, those within the Abraham Lincoln Institute as well as the Library of Congress' historical exhibits.

Source: University of Colorado Boulder

 In his presentation Morel focused on explaining how The 1619 Project was a missed opportunity for journalists, historians, and all citizens. 

He believes the 1619 Project was insufficiently published by the New York Times writer Hannah-Jones in 2019. This article was published in 2019 to recognize the 400th year anniversary of the beginning of American Slavery.

When describing Hannah-Jones' publication Morel states, it "only supported one side" of history. 

He explains that journalists, such as Hannah-Jones, fail to provide all historical transparency; in which historians would do no such thing. 

 The 1619 Project was aimed to give citizens a better understanding of our nation's history meanwhile, it further supported the lack of acknowledgement of the challenges black Americans face. It is imperative all of us Americans reflect on the heroism Lincoln showed by saving our nation from slavery. 

The published article stands on the foundation stating America was born in 1619 when the first enslaved people arrived in Virginia. The article by author Hannah-Jones begins by stating our democracy's founding ideas were falsely written. The New York Times sets the tone and paints a picture when introducing the 1619 Project. 

Lucas Morel again further supports his beliefs when stating "The 1619 is undeniably an American culture phenomenon." 

Abraham Lincoln's efforts are explained in detail to help viewers understand the length Lincoln went to to advocate for Blacks in the United States. 

Lincoln recognized minority groups alone could not win in a battle against the opposition without the help of others. History includes Lincoln's arguments stating African-Americans had the same rights as all; leading to his presidential decision of the Emancipation Proclamation. 

 I agree with the statement that the insufficient publication of the 1619 Project in 2019 fails to encourage citizens to resolve political issues peacefully. The article does not make understanding the rights of Black Americans any easier or help solve political or racial issues today.  The article further polarizes the US rather than unite them. 

Overall, I found Morel's presentation eye-opening. It is imperative for journalists to publish all sides of historical stories; thus being completely transparent.