Tweet
Balance and fairness are real issues
Christopher Burns
Monday, June 11, 2007
It might not have been the most efficient use of valuable airtime and her tone might not have reflected the crisp elocution we glorify in our leaders, but the irrefutability of the prime minister's claim of bias by segments of the fourth estate is indubitable. My support of the prime minister's claim is predicated on my own research, assessment and monitoring of most of the local media outfit over the past 18 months.
I am aware that there are individuals who are unrepentant in their belief that a convergence of views on a particular issue is synonymous with an expression of partisan preference and support. To those who harbour this mindset, any support of the views of either the prime minister or the Opposition leader automatically makes one a comrade or a labourite.
Of greater significance, however, is the fact that we should never imprison ourselves by accepting a set of philosophies, institutional or otherwise, that encourages us to become yes-men or forces us to defend the indefensible. Put another way, our loyalty must always be to the truth. Therefore, I remain unapologetic.
While I support the prime minister's complaint, I hold divergent views based on empirical evidence that the JLP is likely to gain from the extra four minutes of coverage that a television station recently allowed. I was somewhat disappointed too with the flavour of her complaint. Perhaps because it was done extemporaneously, it came across as a less serious issue and more as political whining. It's such a pity she did not use the opportunity to make a fulsome presentation to address the many other instances of media biases, especially since assuming the prime ministership.
The prime minister's objection should also be viewed through the prism of the general shifts in the ownership of the media and within the context of the declining quality and coverage of some media entities. In terms of quality, matters affecting accuracy, fairness and balance in news coverage and reporting warrant urgent attention by news directors. Don't tell me, for example, that caricaturists cannot find something hilarious about other political figures, or cannot identify other themes, except to perch on releasing offensive caricatures of the prime minister. Where is the fairness between belittling and uplifting stories in these cartoons?
On the vexed issue of accuracy in reporting, it is sad that some media houses run stories without attempting to verify the accuracy of the information they present.
The absence of balance between negative and positive stories is also troubling. Take, for example, the flood of coverage in 2006 highlighting problems at Victoria Jubilee Hospital. One would have expected similar coverage of the positive changes that have taken place since, but as it appears, this may violate journalistic ethics.
Another shift in the quality of the news relates to some journalists who are so eager to yield to bias and prejudice that they do so without realising that to be professional they must appear to be judicious and fair.
Fairness in this sense demands that the media exercise equal scrutiny of the costs associated with the promises from both political parties. For while media scepticism greeted the government's stated ability to finance the $350 million in free health care for children under 18, not a single question has been asked of the Opposition to explain why, in just over 30 days, the $500-million price tag for its free tuition jumped to $750 million.
Importantly, the prime minister's utterance should encourage media practitioners, especially newsroom managers, to refocus attention on the inherent principles of political balance in news coverage. This notion is one of the basic standards used in appraising the weight of bias and in assessing fairness and impartiality in television, radio and newspaper coverage, especially during election seasons.
Consequently, newsrooms generally use three types of balance, as they work to achieve reasonable objectivity and maintain credibility.
Newsrooms use the stop-watch balance, directional balance, or the agenda balance approach in dealing with political coverage. The stop-watch balance focuses on the amount of coverage each party or candidate receives, and not on the contents or the effect of the coverage. On the face of it, it appears that this is the gravamen of Portia's claim. She might have thought that the greater the length of coverage her opponents got, the greater the potential for them to sway voters. But the additional exposure may not have the effects that many think it does, because politicians often harm themselves and their cause by committing the "foot-in-mouth" mistake, especially when given a microphone. Hence, the extra four minutes of coverage may not have been consequential enough to earn the JLP additional votes.
Directional balance focuses on measuring the positive, negative and neutral contents of reporting. In this approach, news is defined as impartial if it is even-handed, and emphasises the contents and tone of news more than the mechanical length of exposure. I urge politicians to use media coverage judiciously to articulate positive and substantive issues covering topics affecting geopolitics, economics and social development.
Agenda balance focuses on proportionate coverage of key issues common to political parties. However, a study done by Pippa Norris and David Sanders of John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University revealed that "there was no evidence that newsrooms that focus on particular issues help to increase the fortunes of one party over the next". Many are of a different view, however, that concentration on negatives, key issues (crime and bad roads) without the commensurate focus on positive key issues (employment growth and improved roads) can increase political fortunes.
The same study also showed that "the short-term effects of the amount of coverage that each party gets in the news, as measured by the stop-watch principle, did not provide automatic boost in support for one party or automatic decrease for the other". As far as directional balance is concerned, the study showed that "directional balance is important in that positive news has the capacity to provide a short-term and modest boost to party's fortunes".
Burnscg@aol.com
Christopher Burns
Monday, June 11, 2007
It might not have been the most efficient use of valuable airtime and her tone might not have reflected the crisp elocution we glorify in our leaders, but the irrefutability of the prime minister's claim of bias by segments of the fourth estate is indubitable. My support of the prime minister's claim is predicated on my own research, assessment and monitoring of most of the local media outfit over the past 18 months.
I am aware that there are individuals who are unrepentant in their belief that a convergence of views on a particular issue is synonymous with an expression of partisan preference and support. To those who harbour this mindset, any support of the views of either the prime minister or the Opposition leader automatically makes one a comrade or a labourite.
Of greater significance, however, is the fact that we should never imprison ourselves by accepting a set of philosophies, institutional or otherwise, that encourages us to become yes-men or forces us to defend the indefensible. Put another way, our loyalty must always be to the truth. Therefore, I remain unapologetic.
While I support the prime minister's complaint, I hold divergent views based on empirical evidence that the JLP is likely to gain from the extra four minutes of coverage that a television station recently allowed. I was somewhat disappointed too with the flavour of her complaint. Perhaps because it was done extemporaneously, it came across as a less serious issue and more as political whining. It's such a pity she did not use the opportunity to make a fulsome presentation to address the many other instances of media biases, especially since assuming the prime ministership.
The prime minister's objection should also be viewed through the prism of the general shifts in the ownership of the media and within the context of the declining quality and coverage of some media entities. In terms of quality, matters affecting accuracy, fairness and balance in news coverage and reporting warrant urgent attention by news directors. Don't tell me, for example, that caricaturists cannot find something hilarious about other political figures, or cannot identify other themes, except to perch on releasing offensive caricatures of the prime minister. Where is the fairness between belittling and uplifting stories in these cartoons?
On the vexed issue of accuracy in reporting, it is sad that some media houses run stories without attempting to verify the accuracy of the information they present.
The absence of balance between negative and positive stories is also troubling. Take, for example, the flood of coverage in 2006 highlighting problems at Victoria Jubilee Hospital. One would have expected similar coverage of the positive changes that have taken place since, but as it appears, this may violate journalistic ethics.
Another shift in the quality of the news relates to some journalists who are so eager to yield to bias and prejudice that they do so without realising that to be professional they must appear to be judicious and fair.
Fairness in this sense demands that the media exercise equal scrutiny of the costs associated with the promises from both political parties. For while media scepticism greeted the government's stated ability to finance the $350 million in free health care for children under 18, not a single question has been asked of the Opposition to explain why, in just over 30 days, the $500-million price tag for its free tuition jumped to $750 million.
Importantly, the prime minister's utterance should encourage media practitioners, especially newsroom managers, to refocus attention on the inherent principles of political balance in news coverage. This notion is one of the basic standards used in appraising the weight of bias and in assessing fairness and impartiality in television, radio and newspaper coverage, especially during election seasons.
Consequently, newsrooms generally use three types of balance, as they work to achieve reasonable objectivity and maintain credibility.
Newsrooms use the stop-watch balance, directional balance, or the agenda balance approach in dealing with political coverage. The stop-watch balance focuses on the amount of coverage each party or candidate receives, and not on the contents or the effect of the coverage. On the face of it, it appears that this is the gravamen of Portia's claim. She might have thought that the greater the length of coverage her opponents got, the greater the potential for them to sway voters. But the additional exposure may not have the effects that many think it does, because politicians often harm themselves and their cause by committing the "foot-in-mouth" mistake, especially when given a microphone. Hence, the extra four minutes of coverage may not have been consequential enough to earn the JLP additional votes.
Directional balance focuses on measuring the positive, negative and neutral contents of reporting. In this approach, news is defined as impartial if it is even-handed, and emphasises the contents and tone of news more than the mechanical length of exposure. I urge politicians to use media coverage judiciously to articulate positive and substantive issues covering topics affecting geopolitics, economics and social development.
Agenda balance focuses on proportionate coverage of key issues common to political parties. However, a study done by Pippa Norris and David Sanders of John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University revealed that "there was no evidence that newsrooms that focus on particular issues help to increase the fortunes of one party over the next". Many are of a different view, however, that concentration on negatives, key issues (crime and bad roads) without the commensurate focus on positive key issues (employment growth and improved roads) can increase political fortunes.
The same study also showed that "the short-term effects of the amount of coverage that each party gets in the news, as measured by the stop-watch principle, did not provide automatic boost in support for one party or automatic decrease for the other". As far as directional balance is concerned, the study showed that "directional balance is important in that positive news has the capacity to provide a short-term and modest boost to party's fortunes".
Burnscg@aol.com