After much anticipation, here's the ethics post, as promised!
For review, here's what I said: Media are the gatekeepers of information. Indeciding
what's news and what isn't, we're essentially biased. Our bias is
cultivated by those who teach us news judgement. It's a certain
preference for stories that fit a criterion we then pass on to our
readers.
Then, when we write a story, all the information and words
that go into an article are filtered through our minds and onto the
page, then through an editor's mind and back to the page. And each
reader takes that information with the knowledge of their own
experiences, to agree or disagree with the facts as the reporter sees
them.
And throughout that whole process I don't think it's possible to be 100% unbiased and objective in reporting.
Do
you agree with me? Why or why not? Is it possible to be objective? Do
you know any objective journalists? At what point does one's own
history hinder one's work?
The answers I got: From a former aviation reporter: As humans, journalists have biases, but their "job is to be objective, accurate and fair - to present
both sides of a story." A person can have an opinion about something and still "write a story that is fair and objectively presents
all sides. And above all, the story should make sure that whatever
claims are being made by whatever side, the facts have been checked out
so that the story, and the arguments being made, are factual. If
they're not, point them out and let the reader decide what to make of
it."
My favorite part of that response:
"It's a longstanding observation that you know you're doing a good
job when both sides of a controversial issue think you're supporting
the other side. That means you're presenting both sides. When I covered
the highly controversial topic of growth at a small local airport, I
once had the side that wanted to keep the airport small and favored NO
growth spread rumors that I was FOR growth and the airport being bigger
because I was dating a flight attendant at one of the airlines that
used the airport. There also was a rumor being spread that the reason I
was AGAINST growth at the airport and biased towards that side was
because my mother lived under the flight path and hated the noise.
Well, unfortunately, I wasn't dating a flight attendant, and
(fortunately?) my mother lives out of state! Guess I was doing a good
job covering the issue. And whenever anybody ever asked me my opinion
about something I was covering, I just was honest and said reporters
aren't paid to give opinions, but to cover the story fairly and ask you
yours."
From a managing editor currently in Arkansas.
"I think it's impossible to be completely, 100 percent neutral. As human
beings, we are naturally inclined to take sides when faced with a gathering of facts. However, a good journalist is able to put their bias aside and write a neutral article, giving both sides equal representation.
Unfortunately, there are many journalists who are unable to do so and
editors who are unable to identify subjectivity and erase it when necessary, thus making it difficult for credible and honest journalists to make a good name for themselves with important sources who have been subjected to poor form over the years."
If you've got anything to add or want to put your two cents in, please leave a comment!