Politics, News & Issues >
News Industry
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCan journalists in countries that are engaged in conflict be truly objective?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 53% | 17 votes | Total: 32 votes | |
| Yes | 47% | 15 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe truth is that rarely, if ever, is a journalist truly objective about what they are writing about. This is based on the fact that, in part, the definition of objective is to "not be influenced by personal feelings, interpretation, or prejudice." As writers, we are trained that we must maintain a neutral perspective and to just report the facts. But, even in choosing what we will report we are influenced by our own feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. However, just because a journalist has feelings regarding a specific issue does not in and of itself preclude a truthful presentation of the facts.
A journalist living in a country in conflict who is entrusted with the responsibility to report the goings on is especially susceptible to the effect of the experience on how they will report the events. How can one not be affected by the things that are happening right outside the door? When the journalist himself, family members and neighbors are affected by what is transpiring this evokes an emotional response. Therefore, journalists living inside the borders of a country in conflict have a particularly keen sense of the need to make the people outside those borders understand and feel what they are experiencing. They will search for just the right story, the interview, the photograph, or the sound bite that will convey the smells, the sights, the reality of what they are living. They want the rest of the world to know the heartache, the fear, and occasionally even the heroism that they are seeing first hand. Therefore, inevitably, their own emotions will dictate what words they choose, what tone their piece will have. However, that isn't necessarily a negative thing.
Journalists who experienced the genocide in Rwanda in the early nineties were exposed to horrific scenes on a daily basis. They witnessed the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people right in front of their eyes. They were forced to stand by, unable to do anything other than report the atrocities. It would have been humanely impossible to live through an experience like that and remain objective. Regardless of political, religious, or social background, remaining objective to the sheer magnitude of the evil that surrounded them was a weight that no person would have been able to bear. Time and again, we hear their cries for help through the stories they chose to tell. We are unable to watch, read or listen to those news reports without feeling ourselves the horror of what happened. Now, imagine actually being in the middle of the conflict. Imagine that it is you who is looking on while children are hacked to pieces by deranged men with machetes.
Regrettably, those reports were not sufficient to provoke any type of international action. What desperation they must have felt when the rest of the world stood by and allowed the genocide to continue! Of course they were unable to remain objective in the face of that realization. But do we feel that the lack of objectivity resulted in inaccurate or untruthful reports? Do we believe that it would have been better for those journalists to remain detached and unfeeling when informing the world of what was happening in that country?
Another example is that of the so called "embedded" journalists. While not actually engaged in the war, they none the less eat, sleep and live with the troops. Anything that the battalion they are assigned to is experiencing, they are experiencing. They get to know the soldiers, not just as men and women wearing a uniform, but as real people. They laugh and cry together. The moments that they spend together result in bonds forming which, in turn, will influence how they view the things on which they are reporting. Perhaps personally a journalist is against the war, but after bonding with the soldiers the war takes on a different perspective. It may not change their personal convictions, but it will have some sort of an influence over what they report and how they do it. To what degree will depend on the person and what they experience.
Journalists living in countries in conflict are professionals with a very serious responsibility. What they report will have far reaching effects. They hope that how they portray the news will incite shock, indignation, anger, sadness, and ultimately action. And that very fact proves that they are no longer truly objective. They are a part of what they report.
.
Learn more about this author, Melannie Gonzalez.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
A journalist working in a country under conflict can be objective, but the effort that maintaining that objectivity requires is sometimes immense. The objective journalist is often a lonely journalist, not only because the parties on different sides of the conflict are always suspicious of where the journalist's loyalties really lay, but also because his audience does not necessarily want to read or listen to objectivity.
I work with a small newspaper in the Philippines. This country is constantly fighting three different battles. In the south of the country, there is an active rebellion by several loosely-related groups of Islamic extremists, which is the violent outgrowth of a long-running dispute over the autonomy of the majority Muslim regions of Mindanao. Throughout the country, but primarily in the north and central regions, there is an armed rebellion by Communist insurgents, who have just recently marked the 40th anniversary of their uprising. And both these very different conflicts are taking place against a backdrop of bitter, intractable, and occasionally violent divisions within all levels of the government.
Journalists in the Philippines have a poor reputation. The common joke revolves around the "envelope" that almost everyone is offered at one time or another and far too many accept, the envelope of cash to write a certain story this way or that way, or in some cases to not write it at all. Those who hold their integrity dear and report the stories that one interest or another wants hushed sometimes end up dead. And the public, the people who buy newspapers and tune in to TV news, want sensationalism. They do not want to read or hear about the intricate murkiness of the issues behind the Communist revolt, they want to read or hear about how the Army mowed down a cadre of NPA fighters. Or how the NPA ambushed and wiped out a platoon of soldiers, depending on what side the news consumer places himself on. So as a matter of self-preservation, many journalists take a side themselves. Side with the government, and they'll have important friends and job security. Side with the opposition, and they'll make lots of money and a popular reputation for themselves.
All of which leaves the rest of us feeling a little flat. We have to work harder to gather our information, because the news makers don't trust us. We don't sell as many papers or as much airtime because the news consumers find us dull. Is it worth it?
Of course it is. Somebody has to do it. And even as cynical and hard-bitten as we journalists can become by constantly fighting what seems like a losing battle, we have tremendous reserves of faith. Somebody, somewhere is listening and reading. Our telling of the facts and our objective analyses will live on long after we're gone. As long as we can get up in the morning and tell ourselves that, we can do the job.
Learn more about this author, John Stall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News Industry
- Can democracy flourish if media ownership is limited?
- Do mainstream media outlets favor bad news over good news?
- Can media exposes on government abuse lead to reform?
- Should the media be giving Paris Hilton so much attention?
- Should the government control talk radio to make it more "balanced"?
- The media and the personal lives of politicians: Open or closed door?
