Tweet
Thank you, Sickko, for that invaluable input you made in your two posts yesterday (posts #21 and #22 using the “Linear Mode” on this forum). I fully agree with every statement you made, and it is good to see a response from another knowledgeable voice within the news media industry.
It is actually frustrating when one sees criticism from media consumers who, although often very sincere and well-meaning in their comments, reflect very little understanding of realities “on the ground.” Take for example views regarding journalists, in particular US journalists. While we’re often quick to call them racists and biased, are these always accurate descriptions? How many of us, for example, are aware that a recent poll (within the past couple of years) revealed that a majority of journalists working in the Washington D.C. area are in fact liberal-leaning in their outlook?
But I’ll say a bit more on this “liberal” outlook below. (The word “liberal” actually means open-minded; open to change.)
As an undergraduate university student, one of my lecturers drilled into my mind his notion that “objectivity is impossible.” He repeatedly suggested to us that this being the case, it might be more beneficial if we substituted the word “fairness” in place of objectivity. Through the years since, I’ve found out more and more that he was very correct!
Now to the matter of news coverage: One way, I’ve found, to measure the value of a news event is to ask myself the question, “Who cares?” In other words, “Who cares about this” and “How many people will be interested?” A positive response such as “Many people” or “Most people” is a good indicator of the news value of the story.
In my previous posts I highlighted the matter of news elements, and even if we don’t use the actual words “news elements,” an understanding of this concept is essential to understanding what makes news. Three of the most essential factors (“news elements”) that I feel most often influence decisions by news editors everywhere are the elements of conflict (everyone loves conflict!), prominence and proximity. (Proximity refers to “nearness,” meaning that, for example, a Jamaican will be more interested in things that happen in Jamaica rather than, say, in Mexico or in India.)
In a context of capitalist competition where advertising is intrinsically linked to audience size, news editors are faced daily with a delicate balancing act. In other words, how to balance their commitment to accuracy, objectivity and credibility on the one hand with, on teh other, maintaining (and increasing) their share in the market through providing what the public desires. A direct result of this is diversification in news coverage, and so we see previously straight news-only media houses like CNN now going into entertainment news, etc. Today’s public is a highly diversified one, and the alternative to developing a specialized interest audience is to do what CNN and other mainstream media houses have done; that is, try to satisfy as broad-based an audience as possible.
It is my sincere, unbending belief that the majority of journalists in North America are sincere in their duties. Most, I suspect, subscribe to the “Code of Ethics of Professional Journalists,” where from the outset the Society states that the duty of all journalists is “to serve the truth” (see the preamble of the Code). The men and women working with news agencies such as the Associated Press, for instance, do not risk their lives merely to reported distorted “truths”!!
In a comment on journalists in the USA, David Weaver, professor of journalism at Indiana University, had this to say: “I think journalists in general tend to be social reformers,” and that this leaning tends to be “liberal.” Weaver was making his comments based on extensive research. Likewise, a 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center (“The State of the News Media”) included in its findings that most journalists regard themselves as being “moderate,” but were actually more left-leaning than the average American.
Liberal, or left leaning, means that such journalist would be more likely than not to be genuinely concerned about social issues. In fact, and I say this without apology, I strongly feel that on a per capita ratio, more USA journalists would defend social issues such as gay rights, abortion rights, etc. than Jamaican journalists! An American journalist who risks his/her life in ascertaining the “truth” in, say, Haiti or Rwanda is not doing that for the salary!
Depending on response, I might continue this overview later.
It is actually frustrating when one sees criticism from media consumers who, although often very sincere and well-meaning in their comments, reflect very little understanding of realities “on the ground.” Take for example views regarding journalists, in particular US journalists. While we’re often quick to call them racists and biased, are these always accurate descriptions? How many of us, for example, are aware that a recent poll (within the past couple of years) revealed that a majority of journalists working in the Washington D.C. area are in fact liberal-leaning in their outlook?
But I’ll say a bit more on this “liberal” outlook below. (The word “liberal” actually means open-minded; open to change.)
As an undergraduate university student, one of my lecturers drilled into my mind his notion that “objectivity is impossible.” He repeatedly suggested to us that this being the case, it might be more beneficial if we substituted the word “fairness” in place of objectivity. Through the years since, I’ve found out more and more that he was very correct!
Now to the matter of news coverage: One way, I’ve found, to measure the value of a news event is to ask myself the question, “Who cares?” In other words, “Who cares about this” and “How many people will be interested?” A positive response such as “Many people” or “Most people” is a good indicator of the news value of the story.
In my previous posts I highlighted the matter of news elements, and even if we don’t use the actual words “news elements,” an understanding of this concept is essential to understanding what makes news. Three of the most essential factors (“news elements”) that I feel most often influence decisions by news editors everywhere are the elements of conflict (everyone loves conflict!), prominence and proximity. (Proximity refers to “nearness,” meaning that, for example, a Jamaican will be more interested in things that happen in Jamaica rather than, say, in Mexico or in India.)
In a context of capitalist competition where advertising is intrinsically linked to audience size, news editors are faced daily with a delicate balancing act. In other words, how to balance their commitment to accuracy, objectivity and credibility on the one hand with, on teh other, maintaining (and increasing) their share in the market through providing what the public desires. A direct result of this is diversification in news coverage, and so we see previously straight news-only media houses like CNN now going into entertainment news, etc. Today’s public is a highly diversified one, and the alternative to developing a specialized interest audience is to do what CNN and other mainstream media houses have done; that is, try to satisfy as broad-based an audience as possible.
It is my sincere, unbending belief that the majority of journalists in North America are sincere in their duties. Most, I suspect, subscribe to the “Code of Ethics of Professional Journalists,” where from the outset the Society states that the duty of all journalists is “to serve the truth” (see the preamble of the Code). The men and women working with news agencies such as the Associated Press, for instance, do not risk their lives merely to reported distorted “truths”!!
In a comment on journalists in the USA, David Weaver, professor of journalism at Indiana University, had this to say: “I think journalists in general tend to be social reformers,” and that this leaning tends to be “liberal.” Weaver was making his comments based on extensive research. Likewise, a 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center (“The State of the News Media”) included in its findings that most journalists regard themselves as being “moderate,” but were actually more left-leaning than the average American.
Liberal, or left leaning, means that such journalist would be more likely than not to be genuinely concerned about social issues. In fact, and I say this without apology, I strongly feel that on a per capita ratio, more USA journalists would defend social issues such as gay rights, abortion rights, etc. than Jamaican journalists! An American journalist who risks his/her life in ascertaining the “truth” in, say, Haiti or Rwanda is not doing that for the salary!
Depending on response, I might continue this overview later.
Comment